UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4759
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WADE TEMPLE HANKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:05-cr-00025-F-1)
Submitted: April 6, 2011 Decided: April 15, 2011
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan Dubois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wade Temple Hankins appeals his twenty-four month
sentence imposed following his revocation of supervised release.
Hankins argues that his sentence is plainly unreasonable because
the district court procedurally erred by failing to adequately
address his request to run his federal sentence concurrent with
his undischarged state sentence to allow his participation in an
inmate construction program while in state custody. Finding no
error, we affirm.
We review Hankins’ supervised release revocation
sentence to determine if it is plainly unreasonable. United
States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). We first
consider whether the sentence is unreasonable. United States v.
Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). In determining
reasonableness, we follow 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
[G]uidelines sentences.” Moulden, 478 F.3d at 656 (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
2
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-
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 district
court 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)
(internal quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed the record
and conclude that the district court did not err in ordering
Hankins’ twenty-four month sentence to run consecutively to his
state term. Accordingly, we conclude that Hankins’ sentence is
not plainly unreasonable.
We thus 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
3