United States v. Steven Reed

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4955

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

STEVEN REED,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:09-cr-00087-RJC-1)

Submitted: April 18, 2012 Decided: May 10, 2012

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henderson Hill, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA,
INC., Ann L. Hester, Assistant Federal Defender, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States
Attorney, Melissa L. Rikard, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Steven Reed appeals the sentence of twenty-four

months’ imprisonment imposed upon revocation of supervised

release. Reed argues that the sentence is procedurally plainly

unreasonable because the district court failed to address his

non-frivolous arguments for a within-Guidelines sentence. The

Government responds that the sentence is not plainly

unreasonable. Finding no error, we affirm.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (West 2000 & Supp. 2011),

the Government sought to revoke Reed’s term of supervised

release based on four violations of its conditions. The

district court determined that the violations of supervision

were Grade C violations. Because Reed’s criminal history placed

him in Category VI, the applicable Guidelines range was eight to

fourteen months’ imprisonment. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual § 7B1.4, p.s. (2010).

Reed requested a within-Guidelines sentence, noting

that he had completed more than two years of his three-year term

of supervised release, that he had done well under supervision,

that he maintained employment for a period of time, that he

participated in drug treatment classes and was a leader in those

classes, and that during his imprisonment pending revocation, he

had completed another drug treatment program. The district

2
court revoked supervised release and imposed a variant sentence

of twenty-four months’ imprisonment. *

In reviewing a sentence imposed after revocation of

supervised release, this court “takes a more deferential

appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of

discretion than reasonableness review for [G]uidelines

sentences.” United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th

Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). We will affirm a

sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is

not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d

544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010). The first step in this review

requires a determination of whether the sentence is

unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th

Cir. 2006). A supervised release revocation sentence is

procedurally reasonable if the district court considered Chapter

Seven’s advisory policy statement range and the 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2011) factors applicable to

supervised release revocation. See Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547;

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). “A court need not be as detailed or

specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when

imposing a post-conviction sentence, but it still must provide a

*
The statutory maximum term was twenty-four months’
imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (2006); 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(3)
(2006); 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006).

3
statement of reasons for the sentence imposed.” Thompson, 595

F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks omitted).

If the sentence is unreasonable, the inquiry proceeds

to the second step of the analysis — determining whether the

sentence is plainly unreasonable. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-39.

For a sentence to be plainly unreasonable, “it must run afoul of

clearly settled law.” Thompson, 595 F.3d at 548.

Here, the district court explicitly considered Reed’s

violations of the law, his drug use, his violations of the terms

of supervision, his difficulty complying with supervision, his

criminal history, the need to protect the public, and the need

for deterrence. The district court permissibly concluded that a

Guidelines sentence would be inadequate and thus imposed a

sentence above the Guidelines range. A review of the record

confirms that the district court sufficiently explained the

selected sentence and addressed Reed’s arguments for a lesser

sentence.

We therefore conclude that the sentence is not

procedurally unreasonable, much less plainly so, and we 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