US v. Krystal Sisler

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:14-cr-00020-JPB-MJA-4 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000033245].. [16-4519]

Appeal: 16-4519

Doc: 22

Filed: 03/01/2017

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4519

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KRYSTAL EILEEN SISLER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins.
John Preston Bailey,
District Judge. (2:14-cr-00020-JPB-MJA-4)

Submitted:

January 26, 2017

Decided:

March 1, 2017

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

L. Richard Walker, Senior Litigator, Clarksburg, West Virginia,
Kristen Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, Martinsburg,
West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United
States Attorney, Stephen D. Warner, Assistant United States
Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4519

Doc: 22

Filed: 03/01/2017

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Krystal Eileen Sisler appeals the district court’s judgment
sentencing her to 37 months’ imprisonment following revocation
of her probation.

On appeal, Sisler contends that her sentence

is plainly unreasonable.

We affirm.

Upon revoking a defendant’s probation, a district court has
broad

discretion

maximum.
2007).

to

impose

a

sentence

up

to

the

statutory

United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 657 (4th Cir.
We apply the same standard for reviewing a sentence

imposed on revocation of probation that we employ for reviewing
a sentence imposed on revocation of supervised release.
655.

We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the

statutory maximum and is not “plainly unreasonable.”
656.

Id. at

Id. at

To determine whether a revocation sentence is plainly

unreasonable,

we

first

assess

whether

the

sentence

is

unreasonable.

United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th

Cir. 2006).
Reasonableness

review

substantive components.

involves

both

procedural

and

In conducting this review, we “take[] a

more deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and
the

exercise

guidelines

of

discretion

sentences.”

Moulden,

quotation marks omitted).
procedurally

reasonable

than

if

reasonableness
478

F.3d

at

review

656

for

(internal

A probation revocation sentence is
the
2

district

court

considers

the

Appeal: 16-4519

Doc: 22

Filed: 03/01/2017

Pg: 3 of 6

Sentencing Guidelines’ Chapter Seven advisory policy statement
range and explains the sentence adequately after considering the
policy statements and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) sentencing
factors.

Moulden, 478 F.3d at 656-57; see 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a)

(2012).

It is substantively reasonable if the district court

states

a

receive

proper

the

basis

sentence

for

concluding

imposed,

up

to

the
the

defendant
statutory

should

maximum.

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440; see also United States v. Thompson, 595
F.3d

544,

547

(4th

Cir.

2010)

(sentencing

explanation

in

revocation context “need not be as detailed or specific” as is
required for an original sentence).

Only if a sentence is found

procedurally or substantively unreasonable will this court “then
decide whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable.”

Crudup,

461 F.3d at 439.
The

revocation

statutes

make

clear

that

courts

“shall

consider” the “applicable guidelines or policy statements issued
by

the

Sentencing

Commission”

in

rendering

a

sentence.

U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4)(B); Moulden, 478 F.3d at 656.
original

sentence

reflected

a

downward

departure

18

Sisler’s
from

the

original 30- to 37-month Guidelines range to an 18- to 24-month
Guidelines

range

probation.
that

a

subsequent

downward

variance

to

At the revocation hearing, defense counsel noted

Sisler

original

and

had

downward

no

criminal

departure

history

Guidelines
3

points,
range

mentioned
was

18

to

her
24

Appeal: 16-4519

Doc: 22

Filed: 03/01/2017

Pg: 4 of 6

months, and stated that her Chapter 7 policy statement range was
3 to 9 months.

Describing Sisler as a nonviolent, first-time

drug offender, defense counsel argued that a sentence within or
above

the

original

unnecessary.

Guidelines

range

would

be

excessive

and

Counsel requested a sentence of imprisonment only

long enough for Sisler to gain admittance to a residential drug
treatment facility.

The Government argued for the same sentence

it sought at the original sentencing:

18 months’ imprisonment,

the low end of Sisler’s downward departure Guidelines range.
In

announcing

Sisler’s

37-month

sentence,

the

district

court explained that it “varied upward” from what either party
requested

to

calculated

term

before

acknowledging
district

a

court

the

the

within

the

downward

sentences

demonstrated

original

departure

requested
that

it

Guidelines

and

by

range

variance.

each

considered

party,
the

By
the

parties’

arguments, which included discussions of the applicable policy
statements and advisory Guidelines.

Cf. United States v. Davis,

53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir. 1995) (determining that revocation
sentence
mentioning

was

procedurally

advisory

policy

reasonable
statement

when,

range,

although

court

not

referenced

range specified in probation officer’s worksheet and counsel’s
argument,

thus

demonstrating

that

policy statement range).

4

the

court

contemplated

the

Appeal: 16-4519

Doc: 22

Filed: 03/01/2017

Pg: 5 of 6

Sisler also contends that the court failed to explain its
consideration of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors.

Although the

district court did not specifically mention 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
in imposing the sentence, it was not required to “robotically
tick through § 3553(a)’s every subsection.”

United States v.

Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006).

We conclude that

the district court’s explanation reflected that it evaluated the
proper § 3553(a) factors relevant to Sisler, namely the nature
and

circumstances

conditions

of

her

3565(a).

The

of

Sisler’s

probation.

court’s

conduct

that

See
that

remarks

18

Sisler

violated

U.S.C.

the

§§ 3553(a)(1),

was

unwilling

or

unable to follow the protocol of probation demonstrate that it
considered
Sisler’s

the

need

breach

of

for
the

the

revocation

court’s

trust.

sentence
See

to

U.S.

sanction

Sentencing

Guidelines Manual USSG ch. 7, pt. A, introductory cmt. 3(b),
p.s.

(2014)

(“[A]t

revocation

the

[district]

court

should

sanction primarily the defendant’s breach of trust.”).
Lastly,

Sisler

takes

issue

with

the

district

court’s

conclusion that her conduct presented a danger to herself and to
others, claiming that this amounted to clearly erroneous fact
finding.

Our

review

of

the

record

on

appeal

leads

us

to

conclude that the district court’s findings are supported by the
record.

5

Appeal: 16-4519

Doc: 22

Filed: 03/01/2017

Pg: 6 of 6

Because Sisler’s revocation sentence is not procedurally or
substantively

unreasonable,

it

is

not

plainly

unreasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm the criminal judgment.

We dispense with

oral

legal

contentions

are

before

this

and

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

court

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

6