UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4018
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RETSYN DESHAWN OWENS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (2:13-cr-00291-1)
Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 1, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian J. Kornbrath, Acting Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D.
Byrne, Appellate Counsel, Lex A. Coleman, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R.
Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Joshua C. Hanks,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Retsyn Deshawn Owens appeals the district court’s
judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to
twenty-four months’ imprisonment. Owens challenges his
sentence, arguing that it is plainly unreasonable. We affirm.
“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a
sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” United
States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). Accordingly,
in examining a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised
release, we “take[] 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 omitted). We will affirm a revocation sentence
that falls within the statutory maximum, unless we find the
sentence to be “plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Crudup,
461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). In reviewing a revocation
sentence, we first consider “whether the sentence is
unreasonable,” following the same general principles we apply to
our review of original sentences. Id. at 438. Only if we find
a sentence to be procedurally or substantively unreasonable will
we determine whether the sentence is “plainly” so. Id. at 439.
A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if
the district court has considered both the applicable 18 U.S.C.
2
§ 3553(a) (2012) factors and the policy statements contained in
Chapter Seven of the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual.
Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. The district court also must provide
an explanation of its chosen sentence, although this explanation
“need not be as detailed or specific” as is required for an
original sentence. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547
(4th Cir. 2010). A revocation sentence is substantively
reasonable if the district court states a proper basis for
concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence
imposed. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.
We cannot conclude that Owens’ twenty-four-month
sentence is unreasonable, much less plainly so. Our review of
the record reveals that the district court considered relevant
§ 3553(a) factors, including Owens’ history of recidivism, his
apparent lack of respect for the law, and the need to protect
the public and deter others from engaging in similar conduct.
Moreover, the court did not err by ordering that Owens’
revocation sentence run consecutively to the 151-month sentence
imposed on his new criminal conviction, as that practice is
sanctioned in the Guidelines. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 7B1.3(f), p.s. (2013).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4