Julie Chrisley ordered to appear at resentencing hearing in person in September... after a judge DENIED her request to attend virtually

Julie Chrisley has been ordered to appear at an upcoming resentencing hearing in person, after requesting to attend virtually.

The 51-year-old reality star made headlines in June when her seven-year prison sentence for her bank fraud and tax evasion charges was overturned.

Her husband Todd Chrisley was sentenced to 12 years in prison, though now his wife Julie may be getting out much early.

Julie's lawyers requested a virtual appearance for, 'an unnecessarily extended period of time and impose undue physical hardship,'  via Atlanta's WSB-TV.

She is currently being held at FMC Lexington in Kentucky and she's now required to travel to Atlanta for the hearing.

Julie Chrisley has been ordered to appear at an upcoming resentencing hearing in person, after requesting to attend virtually

Julie Chrisley has been ordered to appear at an upcoming resentencing hearing in person, after requesting to attend virtually

The 51-year-old reality star made headlines in June when her seven-year prison sentence for her bank fraud and tax evasion charges was overturned

The 51-year-old reality star made headlines in June when her seven-year prison sentence for her bank fraud and tax evasion charges was overturned

'Because Mrs. Chrisley is presently in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) outside the state of Georgia, BOP likely would transfer her via the transfer facility in Oklahoma City or place her in a van for a lengthy, multiple-hour trip while shackled to facilitate her appearance in court,' read a filing from Chrisley's legal team.

The judge turned down the request, demanding her to show up in person at the hearing, scheduled for September 25.

Her husband Todd has had his sentence reduced to 10 years while Julie's was trimmed by 14 months.

However, a judge ruled in June that Julie's prison sentence be thrown out because the previous judge miscalculated her sentence.

'After careful consideration, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the district court on all issues except for the loss amount attributed to Julie,' the judge stated back in June.

'The district court did not identify the evidence it relied on to hold Julie accountable for losses incurred before 2007, and we cannot independently find it in the record,' the judge's statement added.

The case was sent back down to the lower court so they could, 'resentence her accordingly.'

'The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Ms. Chrisley’s sentencing and remanded the case for her to be resentenced,' Julie's legal team said in their statement.

Her husband Todd has had his sentence reduced to 10 years while Julie's was trimmed by 14 months.

However, a judge ruled in June that Julie's prison sentence be thrown out because the previous judge miscalculated her sentence

However, a judge ruled in June that Julie's prison sentence be thrown out because the previous judge miscalculated her sentence

'After careful consideration, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the district court on all issues except for the loss amount attributed to Julie,' the judge stated back in June

'After careful consideration, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the district court on all issues except for the loss amount attributed to Julie,' the judge stated back in June

Chrisley's family said in their own statement that they were staying positive about the resentencing

Chrisley's family said in their own statement that they were staying positive about the resentencing

'While this is not a dismissal of the case against her, it will result in [a] new sentence conforming with the Appeals’ Court’s instructions,' they added.

Chrisley's family said in their own statement that they were staying positive about the resentencing. 

'We’re pleased that the Court agreed that Julie’s sentence was improper, but we’re obviously disappointed that it rejected Todd’s appeal,” Alex Little, an attorney for the family, said in a statement.

'With this step behind us, we can now challenge the couple’s convictions based on the illegal search that started the case,' the attorney added.