UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5007
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER TYRONE SCOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:97-cr-00133-H-4)
Submitted: April 27, 2012 Decided: May 8, 2012
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Research and
Writing Specialist, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Thomas G. Walker, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Christopher Tyrone Scott appeals from his thirty-month
sentence imposed pursuant to the revocation of his supervised
release. Scott asserts that the district court erred by failing
to address his arguments for a within-Guidelines sentence and by
not providing adequate justification for the variance sentence. *
We affirm.
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
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438-39 (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). In making our review, we “follow
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
*
The Guidelines range was 8-14 months. The statutory
maximum was 36 months.
2
unique nature of supervised release revocation sentences.”
Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-39.
We should affirm if the sentence is not unreasonable.
Id. at 439. Only if a sentence is found procedurally or
substantively unreasonable will we “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. at 439.
When imposing sentence, the district court must
provide individualized reasoning. Where the sentencing court
imposes a sentence outside the Guidelines range, it “‘must
consider the extent of the deviation and ensure that the
justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree
of the variance.’” United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473
(4th Cir. 2007). We “may consider the extent of the deviation
[from the recommended Guidelines range], but must give due
deference to the district court’s decision that the [18 U.S.C.]
§ 3553(a) [2006] factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the
variance.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “The
sentencing judge should 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). The Carter rationale applies to
3
revocation hearings; however, “[a] court need not be as detailed
or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be
when imposing a post-conviction sentence.” United States v.
Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010) (noting that a
district court’s reasoning may be “clear from context” and the
court’s statements throughout the sentencing hearing may be
considered). Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that “[w]here
a [sentencing] matter is . . . conceptually simple” and “the
record makes clear that the sentencing judge considered the
evidence and arguments, we do not believe the law requires the
judge to write more extensively.” Rita v. United States, 551
U.S. 338, 359 (2007).
Given the high level of discretion afforded to the
district court, we conclude that the court’s reasoning was
sufficient. It is clear from a review of the record that the
court listened attentively to Scott’s arguments. The court
questioned Scott about his statements and ensured that it fully
understood the facts and contentions in the case. The court
noted that it was considering the maximum sentence, but
eventually imposed a sentence six months shorter after hearing
argument. The court stated that it imposed a sentence above the
Guidelines range based on the fact that Scott absconded from
supervision and the conclusion that his criminal history posed a
danger to society. While the court did not directly address
4
Scott’s argument that his wife was requiring his sobriety as a
condition of their marriage, the court did recommend intense
drug treatment. Moreover, the resolve of Scott’s wife was not a
reasonable ground to impose a shorter sentence given Scott’s
criminal history and repeated violations of supervised release -
she was a third party with no actual or apparent control over
Scott.
Accordingly, we affirm Scott’s sentence. 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