US v. Tabitha Gann

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:08-cr-00007-JLK-2. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999680323]. [15-4253]

Appeal: 15-4253

Doc: 25

Filed: 10/19/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4253

Doc: 25

Filed: 10/19/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

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

Appeal: 15-4253

Doc: 25

Filed: 10/19/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

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