United States v. Peebles
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23069
| 6th Cir. | 2010Background
- Peebles pled guilty to one count of bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 in the District of North Dakota (sentence: 1 month imprisonment followed by 3 years of supervised release).
- Jurisdiction over supervision transferred to the Western District of Michigan on Oct. 30, 2008; Probation Officer Stuart N. Chavis assigned.
- A condition barred contact with felons; Peebles began a relationship with Miller, a convicted felon; she lied in monthly reports Oct 2008–Feb 2009 and admitted the relationship on Feb. 10, 2009.
- Pregnant at the time; requested to submit a rationale for the no-contact condition but did not raise the report; pregnancy ended in miscarriage in March 2009.
- May 19, 2009 district court signed a warrant; ten supervised-release violations alleged (failure to file written reports, driving with suspended license, failure to report contact with law enforcement, lying about contact with Miller, associating with a felon, failing to notify after questioning, attending a traffic-stop with a felon present, refusing to submit a no-contact report, refusing to attend therapy, and failure to pay a special assessment/fine).
- July 20, 2009 Peebles arrested; pleaded guilty to counts 1 and 4–10; district court revoked supervised release and sentenced her to 10 months, without clearly calculating a Guidelines range; ranges in the record varied (3–9, 5–11, 4–10, or 8–14 months with an actual Criminal History Category III).
- Peebles appealed arguing the sentence was unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly calculated the Guidelines range. | Peebles. | Peebles. | Procedurally unreasonable; range not calculated in open court; vacated and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kontrol, 554 F.3d 1089 (6th Cir. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for supervised-release sentences)
- United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2007) (procedural/sentencing review; determine if guidelines applied properly)
- United States v. Houston, 529 F.3d 743 (6th Cir. 2008) (abuse of discretion in sentencing; consideration of §3553(a))
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (guidelines are starting point for sentencing)
- United States v. Grams, 566 F.3d 683 (6th Cir. 2009) (district court should state calculated guideline range)
- United States v. Blackie, 548 F.3d 395 (6th Cir. 2008) (procedural unreasonableness when range not discernible)