Case Explained: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CELESTE ALLEN PARDUE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Filed: 2026-07-30 The fourth-circuit affirmed the district court’s imposition of a ten-month sentence followed by two years’ supervised release upon revocation of Celeste Allen Pardue’s supervised release. The court applied the standard that a district court has broad discretion in imposing revocation sentences and will affirm unless the sentence is above the statutory maximum or plainly unreasonable. Under this review, the court examined whether the sentence was procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Regarding procedural reasonableness, the court held that the district court adequately explained its sentencing decision by engaging with Pardue’s arguments regarding addiction and explaining why it declined her request for in-patient treatment based on her lack of accountability for multiple violations. The court noted that while the judge did not explicitly “tick through” each factor under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the explanation demonstrated consideration of the nature of the offense, history and characteristics, and deterrence. Regarding substantive reasonableness, the court applied the presumption of reasonableness afforded to within-Guidelines-range sentences and concluded that Pardue failed to overcome this presumption because the district court stated an appropriate basis for the sentence imposed in light of the totality of the circumstances. The practical consequence is that the revocation judgment stands and oral argument was dispensed with. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.