US v. Tabitha Gann, No. 15-4253 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4253 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TABITHA LYNN GANN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:08-cr-00007-JLK-2) Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 19, 2015 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Allegra M.C. Black, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Anthony P. Giorno, Acting United States Attorney, R. Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tabitha upon Lynn revocation Gann of her appeals her supervised 11-month sentence release. On imposed appeal, Gann asserts that her sentence is plainly unreasonable because the district court, in imposing a sentence at the top of the Sentencing Guidelines’ policy statement range, unduly emphasized her attitude while on supervised release. “A district court has broad We affirm. discretion when sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). imposing a United States We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the applicable statutory maximum and not plainly unreasonable. 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. United States v. Padgett, 2015). “Only if a revocation sentence is unreasonable must we assess whether it is plainly so.” Id. Gann raises no procedural challenge to her sentence, and the record reveals no substantive error by the district court. A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court states a proper basis for concluding that the defendant should statutory maximum. (4th Cir. 2006). sentencing factors receive the sentence imposed, up to the United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 440 Here, and when imposing considering sentence, the the applicable court fairly weighed Gann’s prior supervised release violations, history of 2 substance abuse, and poor attitude on supervision, all of which relate to Gann’s history and characteristics. §§ 3553(a)(1), 3583(e) (2012). See 18 U.S.C. We conclude that Gann’s sentence is not unreasonable and therefore not plainly so. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
