UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5149
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KAREEM SAINT ROBERSON, a/k/a Poncho,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (7:95-cr-00045-BR-2)
Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: July 15, 2011
Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Kareem Saint Roberson appeals from his fifty-one-month
sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. On
appeal, he asserts that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable. We affirm.
Roberson contends on appeal that his sentence is
substantively unreasonable because the district court did not
make an individualized assessment of his argument for a downward
variance from the Sentencing Guidelines range. Defense counsel
asked the court to consider sentencing Roberson below the
Sentencing Guidelines range of fifty-one to sixty months for the
supervised release violation in consideration of the over four
years Roberson served for the criminal conduct involved and
because he is a relatively young man who could make something of
himself after incarceration. Roberson argues on appeal that the
court made a finding that all defendants who had previously
served an imprisonment term for criminal conduct that
constituted a supervised release violation could argue for a
variance based on time served. Roberson argues that the court
improperly rejected the argument without considering it as a
mitigating factor in his individual case.
A sentence imposed after revocation of supervised
release should be affirmed if it is within the applicable
statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. United
2
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). In
making this determination, the court first considers 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). In making its review, the court
“follow[s] generally the procedural and substantive
considerations that [are] employ[ed] in [the] review of original
sentences, . . . with some necessary modifications to take into
account the unique nature of supervised release revocation
sentences.” Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-39.
A sentence imposed upon revocation of release is
substantively reasonable if the district court stated a proper
basis for concluding that the defendant should receive the
sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d
at 440. The court should affirm if the sentence is not
unreasonable. Id. at 439. Only if a sentence is found
unreasonable will the court “decide whether the sentence is
plainly unreasonable.” Id. “[T]he court ultimately has broad
discretion to revoke its previous sentence and impose a term of
imprisonment up to the statutory maximum.” Id.
Here, the district court considered Roberson’s
argument for a downward variance based on the time served on the
3
criminal conduct related to his supervised release violation and
rejected it. Although Roberson argues that the court’s
explanation for rejecting the argument did not evince an
individual consideration of his case, the court’s reasoning
directly addressed the argument and rejected it on its merits.
The court explicitly considered the Guidelines range as well as
the statutory factors of § 3553 that it was permitted to
consider when arriving at a sentence. Further, given the
court’s broad discretion, the reasons stated for imposing a
sentence at the lowest end of the Guidelines range were
substantively sufficient. The court rejected Roberson’s request
for a downward variance and heard argument that Roberson
disregarded the conditions of supervised release by immediately
committing another drug offense. The court acknowledged
Roberson’s younger age, but stated that the sentence imposed was
necessary to provide adequate deterrence and to promote respect
for the law. Thus, the fifty-one month sentence for Roberson’s
violation of supervised release was not an abuse of discretion.
Moreover, Roberson faces a very heavy burden in
challenging his sentence. Even if he could show that his
sentence was unreasonable, he would still need to show that it
was plainly unreasonable. A sentence is “plainly unreasonable”
if it “run[s] afoul of clearly settled law.” United States v.
Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 548 (4th Cir. 2010). Roberson has not
4
cited clearly settled law that was violated by the district
court’s sentence, and the record does not reveal any such
obvious errors.
We therefore affirm the sentence imposed upon
revocation of supervised release. 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