UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4597
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JUVENILE MALE #3,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:06-cr-00065-F-3)
Submitted: June 10, 2010 Decided: June 28, 2010
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Research and
Writing Specialist, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Juvenile Male #3 appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his juvenile delinquent supervision and sentencing him
to twenty-four months in prison. Appellant argues that his
sentence is plainly unreasonable because the district court
allegedly failed to acknowledge his attorney’s arguments in
mitigation at sentencing. Finding no error, we affirm the
district court’s judgment.
This court will affirm a sentence imposed after
revocation of a juvenile delinquent supervision period if it is
within the prescribed statutory range and not plainly
unreasonable. See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437-39
(4th Cir. 2006). In making this determination, we first
consider whether the sentence is unreasonable. Id. at 438.
“This initial inquiry takes a more deferential appellate posture
concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than
reasonableness review for [G]uidelines sentences.” United
States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
The district court’s discretion is not unlimited,
however. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir.
2010). For instance, the district court commits procedural
error by failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence or by
not providing an individualized assessment based on the facts.
2
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “A court need
not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation
sentence as it must be when imposing a post-conviction sentence,
but it still must provide a statement of reasons for the
sentence imposed.” Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). The district court also
must “set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that [it]
has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis
for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.”
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).
Although we generally review preserved sentencing
errors for an abuse of discretion, reversing only if an error is
not harmless, this court will review a procedural sentencing
error raised for the first time on appeal for plain error. See
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575-79 (4th Cir. 2010). We
find that the district court did not commit error, plain or
otherwise, when it imposed Appellant’s twenty-four-month
sentence.
Contrary to Appellant’s assertion, we find that the
district court said enough to indicate that it rejected the bulk
of counsel’s argument in light of Appellant’s “egregious conduct
while on supervision[.]” In fact, one of defense counsel’s
concerns at sentencing was that Appellant was unable to receive
drug treatment when he was originally sentenced. The district
3
court responded to this concern when it explicitly mentioned
Appellant’s need for intensive substance abuse treatment as a
reason for imposing the twenty-four-month sentence. Although,
admittedly, the “district court in this case might have said
more,” given the deference this court affords revocation cases
and “the context of this case[,]” we are satisfied that the
district court considered Appellant’s arguments and had a
reasoned basis for imposing the twenty-four-month sentence. See
United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 269, 271-72 (4th Cir.
2010); cf. Thompson, 595 F.3d at 546-47 (finding that district
court procedurally erred in sentencing defendant in supervised
release revocation case where the court merely indicated what
the defendant’s term of imprisonment would be, provided no other
explanation for the sentence imposed, and did not respond to
counsel’s argument in mitigation).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4