United States v. Mary Schipke

Good Law
515 F. App'x 662
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 8, 201311-10266California614 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Mary Elizabeth Schipke appeals the district court’s second revocation of supervised release and imposition of fourteen months imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release. We affirm.

1.A standard condition of Schipke’s supervised release was that she “not commit another federal, state, or local crime during the term of supervision.” The district court’s finding that Schipke violated supervised release, because she committed harassment, in violation of Arizona Revised Statute § 13-2921(A)(1), was not an abuse of discretion. United States v. Daniel, 209 F.3d 1091, 1094 (9th Cir.2000), amended on other grounds by 216 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir.2000).

After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found that Schipke contacted the chambers of Judge John Roll on the first business day after his murder in order to knowingly or intentionally harass his staff. Testimony by court staff and Schipke supports by a preponderance of the evidence the district court’s conclusion that Schip-ke’s inflammatory comments would cause a reasonable person to be harassed and that her comments indeed had such an effect on court staff. See Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-2921; 18 U.S.C. § 3583…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.