USA v. Lipps

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	CRIMINAL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 19-141
RACHEL E. LIPPS 	SECTION: “E” (5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a motion for reconsideration of revocation judgment and
sentence filed by Defendant Rachel Lipps (“Defendant”). 1 The Government filed a
response, opposing the motion to reconsider the Court’s judgment but not opposing her
motion to reconsider her sentence. After considering the law and the parties’ briefs, the
motion for reconsideration of this Court’s judgment is DENIED and the motion to
reconsider Defendant’s sentence is GRANTED for the limited purpose of this Court
clarifying its reasons for revoking Defendant’s supervised release.
BACKGROUND
Defendant’s three-year term of supervised release began on March 27, 2023.2 On
September 3, 2025, the Office of Probation for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(“probation office”) filed a Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under
Supervision. 3 This petition alleged that Defendant had failed to comply with the terms of
her supervised release in two instances:
(1) On August 19, 2025, Mrs. Lipps failed to report to the U.S. Probation Office as
instructed. Several attempts to contact her at (XXX)-XXX-XXXX were made to no
avail. A voicemail was also provided instructing Lipps to report to the office by
4:00 PM on this same day. Subsequently, she never reported; and
1 R. Doc. 88.
2 R. Doc. 65 at p. 1.
3 Id.
Case 2:19-cr-00141-SM-MBN Document 93 Filed 11/12/25 Page 1 of 6

2
(2) Lipps is ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $473,978.53, at a rate of $400
per month. Since the commencement of supervised release, she has failed to make
consistent monthly payments. During the months in which payments were made,
she only made partial payments totaling $1,970. She is $9,230 in arrears and has
an outstanding balance of $472,008.53. 4
On September 12, 2025, the government filed its rule to revoke Defendant’s supervised
release.5 On September 15, 2025, the Court set this matter for hearing on the rule to
revoke and the probation office filed its dispositional report in advance of the hearing. 6
The report stated that (1) since the beginning of her supervised release, Defendant had
failed to make consistent restitution payments; (2) as of September 23, 2025, Lipps was
$9,630 in arrears and had an outstanding balance of $471,608.53; (3) Lipps failed to
report to the probation office on August 19, 2025; (4) each instance of noncompliance
constituted a Grade C violation; and (5) if the Court revoked her supervised release, the
recommended imprisonment range would be three to nine months. 7
On October 16, 2025, Defendant and her counsel appeared for the revocation
hearing.8 The Court recited the government’s rule to revoke allegations; the parties then
stipulated to Defendant’s violations and the Court “[f]ound by a preponderance of the
evidence that defendant, Rachel Lipps, committed the aforementioned violations of the
terms of her supervised release.” 9
The Court determined that Defendant’s violations were classified as grade C and
her recommended guidelines sentencing range was three to nine months imprisonment. 10
4 Id. As of November 5, 2025, Defendant’s restitution balance owed was $471,308.53.
5 R. Doc. 75.
6 R. Docs. 78, 80, 81.
7 R. Doc. 81 at pp. 1-2.
8 R. Doc. 83.
9 R. Doc 88-2 at pp. 3-4.
10 Id. at p. 5.
Case 2:19-cr-00141-SM-MBN Document 93 Filed 11/12/25 Page 2 of 6

3
The Court considered the sentencing guidelines’ Chapter 7 policy statements, recognizing
that they are not binding. 11 The Court further confirmed that it received defense counsel’s
request to continue Defendant’s original term of supervised release in lieu of revocation. 12
The Court then afforded Defendant an opportunity to be heard. 13 Defendant stated
that she “recognized[d] her payments were not what they should be and what was
ordered.”14 The Court asked, “[w]ell, am I right, though, that your family went on
vacations during this time period?” 15 Defendant responded that one vacation was paid for
prior to her release from incarceration. 16
The Court further inquired about Defendant failing to report to an appointment
with her probation officer. 17 Defendant explained that she had her phone turned off all
day and that, when she turned her phone back on, she did not look at her missed calls but
instead went straight to her son’s football game after work. 18 The Court responded that
Defendant’s adhering to her conditions of supervised release had to be her top priority
until her period of supervised release ended. 19
After considering the available facts, the Court revoked Defendant’s supervised
release and sentenced her to three months imprisonment and reimposed a supervised
release term of twenty-four months. 20 In making this ruling, the Court stated “[s]ince the
commencement of her supervision, Ms. Lipps has failed repeatedly to comply with
conditions of supervised release. She’s failed to make consistent restitution payments
11 Id.
12 Id. at pp. 5-6.
13 Id. at p. 6.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Id. at pp. 8-9.
18 Id. at p. 9.
19 Id.
20 Id. at p. 12.
Case 2:19-cr-00141-SM-MBN Document 93 Filed 11/12/25 Page 3 of 6

4
despite spending substantial amounts of money on activities for her children and for
vacations.”21 The Court ordered Defendant to surrender to a designated institution on or
before October 24, 2025, but then granted her an extension until November 17, 2025.22
On October 29, 2025, Defendant filed this Motion for Reconsideration of
Revocation Judgment and Sentence.23 In her supporting memorandum, Defendant
argues that the probation office failed to notify her of the factual allegations that it
privately disclosed to the Court regarding Defendant’s vacation expenditures, and that
the Court relied on these allegations in deciding to revoke her supervised release. 24
Defendant argues that she did not know that the amount she spent on her family’s 2025
travel, specifically her daughter’s cheerleading team trip, would be relevant to her failure
to make restitution payments. 25 Defendant further states that the Court provided
Defendant no opportunity to adequately address or rebut these allegations. 26 As criminal
defendants are entitled to “disclosure of the evidence against” them in revocation
proceedings and to present mitigating evidence and information, Defendant argues
reconsideration of this Court’s judgment revoking her supervised release is proper. 27
ANALYSIS
Because Defendant argues she was not given the opportunity to rebut evidence
submitted against her, the Court has granted her motion to reconsider her sentence.
Defendant argues that she was deprived of the opportunity to address the probation
21 Id.
22 R. Docs. 85, 87.
23 R. Doc 88.
24 R. Doc 88 at p. 1.
25 Id. at pp. 4-5.
26 Id. at pp. 7-8.
27 Id. at p. 2 (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2)(B); United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 328 (5th Cir.
2013)).
Case 2:19-cr-00141-SM-MBN Document 93 Filed 11/12/25 Page 4 of 6

5
office’s allegations that the money spent 	on family vacations and her children’s
extracurricular activities contributed to her failure to make restitution payments. In
granting this motion for reconsideration, Defendant is being given the opportunity to
address these facts and confront the probation office’s claims.
Defendant points out that neither she nor her family spent any money on their
2024 cruise.28 The Court did not consider this vacation in reaching its decision to revoke
Defendant’s supervised release. Rather, the Court’s discussion of vacations related only
to Defendant’s spending money on nonessential activities as opposed to prioritizing her
restitution payments. Defendant stated in her supporting memorandum that “[i]n
deciding to revoke Mrs. Lipps’s supervised release and sentence her to imprisonment, the
Court gave considerable weight to ‘vacations’ Mrs. Lipps reportedly took while on
supervision.” 29 The Court’s decision on sentencing was not based on Defendant’s having
been on these vacations herself. 30 The Court did consider Defendant giving her daughter
her debit card on her 2025 cheerleading trip in making its decision. Defendant argues this
trip cost the family nothing, as she volunteered at the Caesar’s Superdome in order to
fund it. 31 However, Defendant admitted that she gave her daughter her debit card to use
on this trip, and that her card was charged $180 during this time. 32 While the Court
recognizes that such charges do not amount to a large sum of money, this behavior is
demonstrative of a Defendant who still has not properly allocated her financial resources
in order to comply with Court ordered restitution.
28 Id. at p. 6.
29 Id. at p. 3.
30 See R. Doc. 88-2 at pp. 6, 12.
31 R. Doc. 88 at p. 7.
32 Id.
Case 2:19-cr-00141-SM-MBN Document 93 Filed 11/12/25 Page 5 of 6

6
In addition, Defendant admitted during the revocation hearing that she had
violated her conditions of supervised release by failing to make consistent restitution
payments and that she failed to report to the probation office when instructed.33 These
violations form the basis for the Court’s sentencing decision. Furthermore, 18 U.S.C. §
3583(e) allows courts to revoke supervised release after considering a specified collection
of the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).34 One of these factors, § 3553(a)(7),
allows courts to consider “the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.”
Considering Defendant’s admission that she violated her terms of supervised
release, the § 3553(a) factors, and the parties’ arguments in their supporting memoranda,
the Court finds that revocation of Defendant’s supervised release is authorized and the
sentence the Court imposed was warranted.
CONCLUSION
Having reconsidered the sentence imposed, IT IS ORDERED that the Court’s
original 	judgment 	revoking 	Defendant’s 	supervised 	release 35 	is 	re-imposed 	and
Defendant’s term of supervised release remains revoked. Defendant is to be imprisoned
for a term of three months; upon release from imprisonment, Defendant shall be placed
on supervised release for a period of 24 months. Defendant shall surrender to the U.S.
Marshal for this district on November 17, 2025.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 12th day of November, 2025.
_____________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
33 R. Doc. 88-2 at p. 4.
34 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); Warren, 720 F.3d at 328.
35 R. Doc. 86.
Case 2:19-cr-00141-SM-MBN Document 93 Filed 11/12/25 Page 6 of 6