United States v. Sanford

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4498

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

SANA LEE SANFORD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge. (2:99-cr-00197-1)

Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: January 6, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Christian M.
Capece, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R.
Booth Goodwin, II, United States Attorney, Monica L. Dillon,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Sana Lee Sanford appeals the fifteen-month sentence

imposed upon revocation of his term of supervised release.

Sanford argues on appeal that his sentence is procedurally

unreasonable because the district court failed to provide a

sufficient explanation for the sentence imposed. We affirm.

We will not disturb a sentence imposed after

revocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed

statutory range and is not plainly unreasonable. 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 guidelines

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.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Although “[a]

court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a

revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a post-

2
conviction sentence, . . . 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 judge also

must “set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he

has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis

for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.” United

States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).

Sanford does not challenge the revocation of his

supervised release or the calculation of his policy statement

range. His sole contention is that his sentence is procedurally

unreasonable because the district court failed to provide a

sufficient explanation for the sentence imposed and that this

procedural error rendered his sentence plainly unreasonable. ∗

Sanford did not request a sentence outside the policy statement

range. Therefore, we review his challenge to the adequacy of

the explanation for the within-policy statement range sentence

for plain error. Cf. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 580

(4th Cir. 2010) (finding error not preserved where defendant

failed to seek sentence outside guidelines range).

∗
Sanford questions this court’s use of the plainly
unreasonable standard as provided in Crudup. However, as
Sanford acknowledges, a panel of this court cannot overrule the
precedent set by another panel. United States v. Foster, 507
F.3d 233, 251 n.12 (4th Cir. 2007).

3
“To establish plain error, [Sanford] must show that an

error occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error

affected his substantial rights.” United States v. Muhammad,

478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007). Even if Sanford satisfies

these requirements, “correction of the error remains within [the

court’s] discretion, which [the court] should not exercise . . .

unless the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or

public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted) (third alteration in

original).

In the sentencing context, an error affects

substantial rights if the defendant can show that the sentence

imposed “was longer than that to which he would otherwise be

subject.” United States v. Washington, 404 F.3d 834, 849 (4th

Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see

also United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 916 (8th Cir. 2009)

(“In the sentencing context, an error was prejudicial only if

there is a reasonable probability that the defendant would have

received a lighter sentence but for the error.”).

Here, Sanford does not dispute that the policy

statement range was properly calculated and he was sentenced at

the bottom of that range. Sanford failed to present any

arguments for deviating from that range. Therefore, regardless

of whether the district court committed an error and whether any

4
such error was plain, Sanford cannot show that the court’s

failure to more thoroughly explain the supervised release

revocation sentence affected his substantial rights. Therefore,

he cannot establish plain error.

Accordingly, we conclude that Sanford’s sentence is

not plainly unreasonable and 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 the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED