United States v. Christina Richey
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13298
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Christina Richey admitted she violated a supervised‑release condition (associating with a felon); the government dismissed three other alleged violations without proving them.
- Richey had prior admitted supervised‑release violations within the year, including driving without a license (Class III misdemeanor), failing to report a citation, and failing to submit monthly reports.
- At revocation, the probation office prepared an adjustment report recommending 24 months’ custody, citing Richey’s repeated failures to comply with supervision.
- The district court revoked Richey’s supervised release and imposed a 24‑month prison term (above the 6–12 month advisory range), referencing “all of the reasons set out in the adjustment report and recommendation.”
- Richey objected that the recommendation relied on disputed, unproven allegations in the adjustment report; the district court nonetheless sentenced and Richey appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a revocation sentence may be based on disputed, unproven allegations in a probation/adjustment report | Richey: district court procedurally erred by relying on disputed/unproven facts from the adjustment report when imposing sentence | Government: district court did not rely on disputed facts; sentence based on admitted violations and valid reasons in report | Court: As a legal principle, revocation sentencing may not be based on disputed, unproven allegations; but here the court did not rely on such facts and no procedural error occurred |
| Whether the district court actually relied on disputed allegations when imposing the 24‑month term | Richey: reference to “all reasons” shows the court used disputed items; those items were neither admitted nor proven | Government/Dist. Ct.: the court’s reference meant the recommendation section (reasons for custody) based on admitted misconduct, not the disputed allegations | Held: The record shows the court relied on undisputed, admitted violations and valid safety concerns; no clear error in factual findings |
| Standard of review for revocation sentence based on procedural error claim | Richey: (implicit) seeks review for procedural error under Gall | Government: invoked substantive reasonableness and revocation standards | Held: Procedural review follows Gall; district courts cannot base sentences on clearly erroneous or unproven facts, but here procedural requirements were satisfied |
| Whether the probation officer’s recommendation alone can support a finding on disputed facts | Richey: adjustment report should not be treated as evidence for disputed facts | Government: relied on report’s recommendation and undisputed violations | Held: A presentence/adjustment report is not evidence for contested material facts; if facts are disputed, government must prove them — but here disputed facts were not the basis for sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (requires individualized assessment, prohibits sentencing based on clearly erroneous facts)
- United States v. Wise, 976 F.2d 393 (8th Cir. 1992) (PSR is not evidence for contested material facts)
- United States v. Davis, 583 F.3d 1081 (8th Cir. 2009) (when defendant disputes report facts, government must present evidence at sentencing)
- United States v. Carr, 66 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 1995) (due process sentencing standard requires showing that materially false information was the demonstrable basis of sentence)
- United States v. Morehead, 375 F.3d 677 (8th Cir. 2004) (court must base findings on evidence, not just the presentence report)
- Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736 (1948) (due process prohibits sentencing on materially untrue assumptions)
- Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694 (2000) (revocation sentence relates to the original offense; sentencing discretion applies)
- United States v. Hudson, 129 F.3d 994 (8th Cir. 1997) (a court finding without record support is clearly erroneous)