US v. Judy Lassiter, No. 13-4200 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4200 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JUDY MARIE LASSITER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:09-cr-00244-HEH-1) Submitted: July 25, 2013 Decided: August 15, 2013 Before KING, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Craig W. Sampson, BARNES & DIEHL, P.C., Chesterfield, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Michael R. Gill, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Judy Marie Lassiter appeals the district court s judgment revoking her supervised release and imposing a thirtysix-month plainly sentence. Lassiter asserts unreasonable because: it that is her above sentence her is advisory sentencing range and the district court s explanation for the sentence imposed allegedly did not justify such a high sentence; she was not convicted of the state crimes of which she was accused at the time of her revocation hearing; and she claims that the district court did not appear to lend any weight to the fact that [her] child suffered from leukemia and might need the assistance of his mother. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. In reviewing a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release, this court takes a more deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than reasonableness review for guidelines sentences. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation supervised release unreasonable. Cir. 2010). Cir. omitted). revocation sentence Thus, if we it will is not affirm a plainly United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th The first step is to determine whether the sentence is unreasonable. (4th marks 2006). United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 Only if the 2 sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable will the inquiry proceed second which determine whether the step, plainly unreasonable. is to to the sentence is Id. at 438-39. A sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court has considered the policy statements contained in Chapter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines and the applicable 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2013) factors, Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440, and has adequately explained the chosen sentence, although it need not explain the sentence in as much detail as when imposing the original sentence. Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547. When reviewing a sentence above the sentencing range, we may consider the extent of the deviation, but must give due deference to the district court s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance. v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Gall The sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal brackets and quotation marks omitted). Although the Carter rationale applies to revocation hearings, [a] court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must Thompson, be when imposing 595 F.3d at 547 a post-conviction (noting 3 that a sentence[.] district court s reasoning may be clear from context and that the court s statements throughout the sentencing hearing may be considered). A sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court states a proper basis for its imposition of a sentence up to the statutory maximum. however, the district Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. court has broad Ultimately, discretion to probation and impose a sentence up to that maximum. revoke Moulden, 478 F.3d at 657. We conclude that Lassiter s thirty-six-month sentence is not unreasonable. correctly calculated To the the contrary, policy the statement district range, court adequately explained its sentence, appropriately relied on the § 3553(a) factors, and sentenced Lassiter applicable to her offense. a sentence district above court the noted to the statutory maximum Although the district court imposed advisory that it policy was doing statement so range, because the Lassiter egregiously breached the court s trust only five months after her release from prison. Moreover, although the district court heard Lassiter s arguments for leniency, it nonetheless found that the other factors in the case outweighed these circumstances; in conjunction with the nature and circumstances of Lassiter s scheme to defraud, considering Lassiter s criminal history, and considering the fact that a sentence of 36 months previously had no deterring effect 4 whatsoever, the district court determined that a thirty-six-month above-sentencing range sentence was adequate, but not longer than necessary[.] We conclude that the district court s rationale was justified and discern no procedural or substantive error in the imposition of Lassiter s sentence. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ch. 7, pt. A(3)(b) (2012) ( [A]t revocation, the court should sanction primarily the defendant s breach of trust, while taking into account, to a limited degree, the seriousness of the underlying violation and the criminal history of the violator. ). substantive error thirty-six-month in Having the sentence, discerned no district court s it necessarily procedural imposition follows [Lassiter s] sentence is not plainly unreasonable. or of a that Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court s judgment. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
