UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4498
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
5