US v. Anissa Pulley

Filing 920081114

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4285

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANISSA NICOLE PULLEY, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:03-cr-00100-F-2)

Submitted:

October 23, 2008

Decided:

November 14, 2008

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Banumathi Rangarajan, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Anissa Nicole Pulley appeals the twenty-four month

prison term imposed by the district court after it revoked her probation. Finding no error, we affirm. We probation to review a sentence whether imposed the upon revocation is of

determine

sentence

plainly

unreasonable. Cir. 2007).

United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th In doing so, we first assess whether the sentence

is unreasonable, using a more deferential standard as to issues of fact and the district court's exercise of discretion than that applied in reviewing a guidelines sentence. Id. Although

the district court must consider the policy statements contained in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines as "helpful

assistance," and the statutory requirements under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2006 & Supp. 2008), the court has broad

discretion to revoke the previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. Id. at 657. Only if

this modified reasonableness analysis leads us to conclude that the sentence was unreasonable do we ask whether it is "plainly" so. Id. After granting the Government's motion for a downward departure for substantial assistance, the district court

sentenced Pulley to a sixty-month term of probation in August 2004. After Pulley tested positive for marijuana, the district 2

court

amended

the

conditions

of

her

supervision

to

include

participation in substance abuse treatment.

After Pulley tested

positive for marijuana again in 2005, the district court allowed her to continue in treatment. In December 2007, the probation Pulley was charged

officer moved to revoke Pulley's probation.

with twice testing positive for marijuana in 2007 and failing to pay her court-ordered restitution and special assessment. After

Pulley admitted to these latest violations, the district court revoked her probation sentence and resentenced her to twentyfour months in prison, with a recommendation that she

participate in an intensive drug treatment program, followed by two years of supervised release. On insufficiently appeal, analyzed Pulley the contends § 3553(a) the factors district and court a

imposed

sentence that exaggerated the seriousness of her drug-related violations. We disagree. The district court considered the

three to nine month imprisonment range suggested by the Chapter 7 policy statements, but sentenced Pulley to twenty-four months' imprisonment based on her continued violations and to afford her the opportunity to participate in intensive drug treatment.

Moreover, it was reasonable for the district court to take into account not only the severity of Pulley's violations, but their number in fashioning its sentence. 658. 3 See Moulden, 478 F.3d at

We therefore affirm the district court's judgment. dispense with oral argument because the facts and

We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4