United States v. Charlotte Neel, 18-3012

Background

In 2009 Neel pled guilty to fraud (18 U.S.C. §1029) for using her brother’s identity; sentenced to 3 years probation and ~$17,914 restitution.
Neel repeatedly violated probation: failures to pay restitution, new criminal convictions, travel without permission, and failure to notify probation. In 2014 she admitted violations and was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment plus 3 years supervised release.
Neel’s counsel attempted to introduce an Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor ("Ann Thomasen") who later proved to be fabricated by Neel. The court found deception relevant to sentencing.
While on supervised release after 2014, Neel accrued new violations in 2017: associating with a felon found with drugs/paraphernalia, failing to report to her officer, testing positive for cocaine, and failing to pay restitution. She admitted these violations.
The district court considered but rejected placement in the Edna House treatment program (finding Neel not credible and unlikely to engage in treatment) and imposed a 24‑month revocation sentence (statutory maximum) with no further supervised release.
Neel appealed, challenging only the substantive reasonableness of the above‑Guidelines revocation sentence; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 24‑month revocation sentence was substantively unreasonable	Neel argued the sentence was excessive and court failed to adequately consider treatment alternatives	Government argued the sentence was justified by Neel’s long history of noncompliance, deception, and danger to the public	Court held sentence was substantively reasonable and affirmed
Whether the district court failed to consider less‑restrictive alternatives (Edna House treatment)	Neel said the court ignored counsel’s request for treatment and a shorter term followed by intensive inpatient care	Government and court noted the continuance, counsel’s opportunity to present treatment, and the court’s credibility finding that Neel would not engage in treatment	Court held the record shows the court considered alternatives but reasonably rejected them as not credible or effective
Whether the district court placed improper weight on certain §3553(a) factors	Neel urged more weight on rehabilitation/medical care and less on deterrence/public protection/history	Court focused on defendant’s history, deception, repeated failures to comply, and need to protect the public	Court held district court’s weighing of §3553(a) factors was within discretion
Whether the upward variance lacked adequate justification	Neel contended a major departure requires significant justification	Government relied on repeated violations, dishonesty (fabricated sponsor), lengthy supervision history, and danger to community	Court held the court gave significant, case‑specific reasons (deterioration, deception, failed opportunities), supporting the variance

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Morgan, 687 F.3d 688 (6th Cir. 2012) (defines procedural and substantive reasonableness framework)
United States v. Polihonki, 543 F.3d 318 (6th Cir. 2008) (above‑Guidelines sentences lack the presumption of reasonableness afforded within‑Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 2018) (articulates highly deferential abuse‑of‑discretion review for substantive reasonableness)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district courts must consider §3553(a) factors; major departures require substantial justification)
United States v. Collington, 461 F.3d 805 (6th Cir. 2006) (courts reluctant to overturn sentences where district court considered §3553(a) factors in depth)
United States v. Ely, 468 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2006) (appellate courts defer to district court’s balancing of sentencing factors)