United States v. Lockhart, 421 F. App'x 877

Lockhart pled guilty to 18 U.S.C. §1001(a)(3) and §2 for false statements in a mortgage application; sentence: 15 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release, plus restitution of $57,244.26.
Her supervised release began Sept. 10, 2008; multiple violations surfaced by 2010, including falsified employment and income information.
April 2010 compliance hearing found false representations but did not revoke supervised release at that time.
October 2010 probation petitions led to arrest and a December 2010 adjudication admitting numerous violations.
The district court imposed a 12 months and 1 day revocation sentence, later modified for good time, and Lockhart appealed as unreasonable under the revocation standards.
The panel affirmed the district court’s decision, holding the sentence not plainly unreasonable given continued dishonesty and the court’s reasons communicated in the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the revocation sentence was plainly unreasonable given cooperation.	Lockhart argues cooperation should yield a shorter sentence.	Lockhart’s continued deception outweighed any cooperation.	Not plainly unreasonable; cooperation insufficient to override the court’s reasons.
Whether the district court properly considered 3553(a) factors in revocation sentencing.	Lockhart contends factors like cooperation and family needs were ignored.	Court adequately weighed the factors; not required to address each factor individually.	Court’s consideration, discussed in record, supported reasonable sentence.
Whether the court properly treated Lockhart’s cooperation as mitigating given the record of deceit.	Cooperation should have reduced sentence.	Cooperation balanced against ongoing dishonesty; not controlling.	Cooperation did not render the sentence plainly unreasonable.

United States v. Kelley, 359 F.3d 1302 (10th Cir. 2004) (plainly unreasonable standard for revocation sentences; Booker-based reasonableness)
United States v. Steele, 603 F.3d 803 (10th Cir. 2010) (reasonableness review follows Booker framework for revocation)
United States v. Cordova, 461 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2006) (need not recite every § 3553(a) factor; must be mindful of them)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (court need not address every argument if record shows consideration)
United States v. Smart, 518 F.3d 800 (10th Cir. 2008) (district court’s weighting of §3553(a) factors given deference)