UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4345
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HAL EDWARD BROADBENT, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (2:11-cr-00163-HCM-1)
Submitted: November 27, 2012 Decided: November 30, 2012
Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt
Walter B. Dalton, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States
Attorney, Richard D. Cooke, Assistant United States Attorney,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hal Edward Broadbent, III, appeals the revocation of
his probation and sentence of thirteen months’ imprisonment.
Broadbent argues that his sentence is plainly unreasonable in
light of Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011). We
affirm.
Contrary to the Government’s assertion on appeal, we
conclude that Broadbent properly preserved the Tapia issue for
appeal. We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is not
plainly unreasonable. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652,
656 (4th Cir. 2007). 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 probation revocation sentence is procedurally
reasonable if the district court considered the advisory policy
statement range and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, all
of which apply to probation revocation. Moulden, 478 F.3d at
656 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a) (2006)). A sentence is
substantively reasonable if the district court stated a proper
basis for imposing its selected sentence, up to the statutory
maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. “For a sentence to be
plainly unreasonable, . . . it must run afoul of clearly settled
2
law.” United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 548 (4th Cir.
2010).
In Tapia, the Supreme Court held that, in selecting a
sentence following conviction, a district court could not impose
or lengthen a term of imprisonment in order to promote an
offender’s rehabilitation. Tapia, 131 S. Ct. at 2385, 2392-93.
Tapia applies to revocation sentences. United States v.
Bennett, 698 F.3d 195, 197-98 (4th Cir. 2012). A review of the
multiple sentencing proceedings in this case reveals that the
district court selected its chosen sentence based on Broadbent’s
continuous refusal to comply with the conditions of his
probation. While the district court did opine that Broadbent
would benefit from medical treatment, it also noted that
Broadbent’s failure to comply with the prescribed treatment
program created a danger to himself and others. It is clear
that the district court did not impose a sentence solely to
promote rehabilitation and, thus, did not violate the mandate of
Tapia. Our review of the record confirms that Broadbent’s
sentence is also not otherwise plainly unreasonable.
Accordingly, 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
3
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4