United State v. Thornhill, No. 13-2876 (3d Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseIn 2002, Thornhill pled guilty to bank fraud and was sentenced to 21 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. In 2007-2008, she was the subject of three petitions alleging violations of terms of supervised release and was again arrested for bank fraud. The district court considered her history of psychiatric issues, of sexual abuse by a family member and resultant placement into foster care, and of domestic violence in her marriage. With a guideline range for bank fraud of eight to 14 months, the court sentenced her to one day of imprisonment and five years of supervised release with nine months of monitored home detention. The sentence for the release violations was concurrent. Within seven months Thornhill admitted to allegations in two more petitions: tampering with her electronic monitoring transmitter and testing positive several times for marijuana. The judge imposed a within-guideline term of nine months and 24 months of supervised release. In 2009 she pled guilty to another bank fraud and was sentenced to 24 months, with four years of supervised release. Thornhill admitted to the allegations of a sixth petition, in 2013, but the probation officer acknowledged that she had witnessed her brother’s murder and had to cope with the murder of her son and another son’s serious injuries. The judge acknowledged her tragic circumstances, but referred to her need for a controlled environment, and imposed a total term of 36 months in prison with no supervised release. Thornhill argued that the judge erred by failing to articulate reasons for rejecting the guideline range, by failing to indicate how, he considered the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), and by failing to respond to mitigation arguments. The Third Circuit affirmed, noting the judge’s familiarity with Thornhill’s repeated violations of supervised release and “measured treatment of her violations.”
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.