UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4285
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANISSA NICOLE PULLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:03-cr-00100-F-2)
Submitted: October 23, 2008 Decided: November 14, 2008
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne
M. Hayes, Banumathi Rangarajan, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anissa Nicole Pulley appeals the twenty-four month
prison term imposed by the district court after it revoked her
probation. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review a sentence imposed upon revocation of
probation to determine whether the sentence is plainly
unreasonable. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th
Cir. 2007). In doing so, we first assess whether the sentence
is unreasonable, using a more deferential standard as to issues
of fact and the district court’s exercise of discretion than
that applied in reviewing a guidelines sentence. Id. Although
the district court must consider the policy statements contained
in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines as “helpful
assistance,” and the statutory requirements under 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2006 & Supp. 2008), the court has broad
discretion to revoke the previous sentence and impose a term of
imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. Id. at 657. Only if
this modified reasonableness analysis leads us to conclude that
the sentence was unreasonable do we ask whether it is “plainly”
so. Id.
After granting the Government’s motion for a downward
departure for substantial assistance, the district court
sentenced Pulley to a sixty-month term of probation in August
2004. After Pulley tested positive for marijuana, the district
2
court amended the conditions of her supervision to include
participation in substance abuse treatment. After Pulley tested
positive for marijuana again in 2005, the district court allowed
her to continue in treatment. In December 2007, the probation
officer moved to revoke Pulley’s probation. Pulley was charged
with twice testing positive for marijuana in 2007 and failing to
pay her court-ordered restitution and special assessment. After
Pulley admitted to these latest violations, the district court
revoked her probation sentence and resentenced her to twenty-
four months in prison, with a recommendation that she
participate in an intensive drug treatment program, followed by
two years of supervised release.
On appeal, Pulley contends the district court
insufficiently analyzed the § 3553(a) factors and imposed a
sentence that exaggerated the seriousness of her drug-related
violations. We disagree. The district court considered the
three to nine month imprisonment range suggested by the Chapter
7 policy statements, but sentenced Pulley to twenty-four months’
imprisonment based on her continued violations and to afford her
the opportunity to participate in intensive drug treatment.
Moreover, it was reasonable for the district court to take into
account not only the severity of Pulley’s violations, but their
number in fashioning its sentence. See Moulden, 478 F.3d at
658.
3
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4