UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LACRESHA JANELLE SLAPPY
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Gregory, Sept. 22, 2017,
Violation of Probation- Failure to address probationer’s nonfrivolous arguments during VOP sentencing was procedural error where failure to explain upward variance from guidelines did not allow for appellate review.

(Dissent- Shedd- Sufficient evidence that the VOP court considered the factors and arguments, even if it did not specifically address them)

In 2006, Slappy pled guilty to armed bank robbery and related charges. Slappy was sentenced to 107 months imprisonment followed by 5 years of supervised release.
In 2014, Slappy was released from prison and began her supervised release. In 2015, Slappy’s probation officer filed a violation of release based on two positive urine screens.
Later in 2015, another violation was filed based on several violations, including: a theft charge, several missed urine screens, and failure to report.
The guideline sentence was agreed on as 7-13 months with a maximum of 36 months.
Slappy argued that her violations were relatively minor, that she had been doing good work in the community, and that the judge should only sentence with that in mind rather than Slappy’s prior history.
At the violation hearing, the trial judge did not address Slappy’s arguments and imposed a sentence of 36 months.
Slappy appealed, arguing that the trial judge should have addressed her arguments before imposing sentence.
Law from the Case
Held: The Fourth Circuit agreed. The judge abused his discretion in not explaining his decision to vary from the guideline sentence.
Sentencing- When the defendant or government presents a non-frivolous reason for imposing a different sentence than guidelines recommend, the judge “should address the party’s arguments and explain why he has rejected those arguments.”