U.S. v. Hollins

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 28-month term of incarceration after revoking defendant’s terms of supervised release that was based, in part, on defendant’s two retail theft convictions that were obtained while defendant was on supervised release. Dist. Ct. adequately addressed defendant’s principal argument in mitigation, which centered on fact that defendant was entitled to lower sentence given fact that she had already served time on her retail theft convictions, and that she had been undergoing successful outpatient drug treatment, where Dist. Ct. acknowledged defendant’s arguments and rejected them after noting defendant’s history of drug use and her prior unsuccessful attempts at receiving drug treatment. Ct. also rejected defendant’s claim that Dist. Ct. blindly followed recommendation of probation officer in presentence report. Ct. further noted that defendant’s sentence was within applicable guidelines, where Dist. Ct. could properly tack on remaining portion of defendant’s unserved home confinement sentence to high end of applicable guideline range.