UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4882
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TAUREECE MATTHEWS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:04-cr-00005-F-1)
Submitted: April 27, 2010 Decided: July 6, 2010
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Taureece Matthews appeals the district court’s
judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a sentence
of twenty-four months of imprisonment. Matthews argues that the
sentence is plainly unreasonable. For the reasons that follow,
we affirm.
We review a sentence imposed as a result of a
supervised release violation to determine whether the sentence
is plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433,
437 (4th Cir. 2006). The first step in this analysis is a
determination of whether the sentence is unreasonable. Id. at
438. This court, in determining reasonableness, follows
generally the procedural and substantive considerations employed
in reviewing original sentences. Id. However, “[t]his initial
inquiry takes a more ‘deferential appellate posture concerning
issues of fact and the exercise of discretion’ than
reasonableness review for guidelines sentences.” United
States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting
Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439).
Although a district court must consider the policy
statements in Chapter Seven of the sentencing guidelines along
with the statutory requirements of 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e) (2006 &
West Supp. 2009) and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), “the court
ultimately has broad discretion to revoke its previous sentence
2
and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum.”
Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439 (internal quotation marks omitted); see
also Moulden, 478 F.3d at 656-57. If a sentence imposed after a
revocation is not unreasonable, this court will not proceed to
the second prong of the analysis — whether the sentence is
plainly unreasonable. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439.
Matthews argues that his sentence is plainly
unreasonable because the district court failed to address his
arguments for a lesser sentence and failed to adequately explain
its chosen sentence. In United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325
(4th Cir. 2009), this court reaffirmed that a district court
must conduct an “individualized assessment” of the particular
facts of every sentence, whether the court imposes a sentence
above, below, or within the guidelines range. Id. at 330. In
addition, “[w]here [a party] presents nonfrivolous reasons for
imposing a . . . sentence [outside the advisory guidelines
range,] . . . a district judge should address the party’s
arguments and explain why he has rejected those arguments.” Id.
at 328 (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, in the
context of revocation proceedings, the “court need not be as
detailed or specific . . ., but it still ‘must provide a
statement of reasons for the sentence imposed.’” United States
v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Moulden,
478 F.3d at 657).
3
As long as a defendant “draw[s] arguments from § 3553
for a sentence different than the one ultimately imposed, an
aggrieved party sufficiently alerts the district court of its
responsibility to render an individualized explanation
addressing those arguments, and thus preserves its claim.”
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578 (4th Cir. 2010); see
also Thompson, 595 F.3d at 546 (“[A] defendant need only ask for
a sentence outside the range calculated by the court prior to
sentencing in order to preserve his claim for appellate
review.”). When the claim is preserved, we review the issue for
an abuse of discretion. Lynn, 592 F.3d at 576, 579. If the
district court abused its discretion, this court will “reverse
unless . . . the error was harmless.” Id. at 576. Where the
district court commits error, the government bears the burden of
demonstrating that the error was harmless. Id. at 585.
Here, Matthews requested that the district court
impose a suspended sentence and, therefore, we conclude that
Matthews preserved the issue for appellate review. Accordingly,
we review Matthews’ claim for harmless error. Nevertheless, we
conclude that the district court did not commit procedural
error. In short, the court did consider the pertinent policy
statements and statutory factors and, albeit briefly, offer an
individualized assessment rejecting Matthews’ sentencing
assertions. Moreover, the court stated a proper basis for the
4
sentence imposed, which was within the pertinent policy
statement range, thereby rendering it substantively reasonable.
As the sentence imposed is both substantively and procedurally
reasonable, it cannot be plainly unreasonable. See Crudup, 461
F.3d at 439.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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 in the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
5