Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 112 views

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order revoking Randy Baker's supervised release and imposing concurrent sentences of twenty-two months' imprisonment and ten months' imprisonment. Baker's counsel filed a brief questioning whether the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence, but the Court of Appeals found that the district court considered the applicable sentencing factors, explained its rationale, and imposed a sentence within the statutory maximum that was not plainly unreasonable based on Baker's repeated violations of supervised release terms. Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed Baker's sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    112 views4 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order revoking Randy Baker's supervised release and imposing concurrent sentences of twenty-two months' imprisonment and ten months' imprisonment. Baker's counsel filed a brief questioning whether the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence, but the Court of Appeals found that the district court considered the applicable sentencing factors, explained its rationale, and imposed a sentence within the statutory maximum that was not plainly unreasonable based on Baker's repeated violations of supervised release terms. Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed Baker's sentence.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-11-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-4364

    Original Title

    United States v. Randy Baker, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order revoking Randy Baker's supervised release and imposing concurrent sentences of twenty-two months' imprisonment and ten months' imprisonment. Baker's counsel filed a brief questioning whether the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence, but the Court of Appeals found that the district court considered the applicable sentencing factors, explained its rationale, and imposed a sentence within the statutory maximum that was not plainly unreasonable based on Baker's repeated violations of supervised release terms. Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed Baker's sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    112 views4 pages

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order revoking Randy Baker's supervised release and imposing concurrent sentences of twenty-two months' imprisonment and ten months' imprisonment. Baker's counsel filed a brief questioning whether the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence, but the Court of Appeals found that the district court considered the applicable sentencing factors, explained its rationale, and imposed a sentence within the statutory maximum that was not plainly unreasonable based on Baker's repeated violations of supervised release terms. Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed Baker's sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-4364

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    RANDY BAKER,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
    District Judge. (3:01-cr-00045-MOC-1; 3:01-cr-00145-MOC-1)

    Submitted:

    November 27, 2012

    Decided:

    November 30, 2012

    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Henderson Hill, Director, Ann L. Hester, Assistant Federal


    Defender, Douglas E. Roberts, Staff Attorney, FEDERAL DEFENDERS
    OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for
    Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Randy

    Baker

    revoking

    his

    imposing

    concurrent

    sentences

    months

    imprisonment.

    On

    pursuant

    to

    two

    appeals

    concurrent

    Anders

    v.

    the

    terms
    of

    district
    of

    supervised

    twenty-two

    appeal,

    counsel

    California,

    courts

    386

    release

    months

    has

    and

    filed

    U.S.

    order

    738

    and
    ten

    brief

    (1967),

    certifying that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal but


    questioning

    whether

    the

    unreasonable sentence.

    district

    court

    imposed

    plainly

    Baker was notified of his right to file

    a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.


    has declined to file a response brief.

    The Government

    We affirm.

    A district court possesses broad discretion to impose


    a

    sentence

    revoking

    defendants

    supervised

    release

    term.

    United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).
    We

    will

    within

    affirm
    the

    sentence

    statutory

    imposed

    maximum

    and

    upon
    not

    revocation

    plainly

    if

    it

    is

    unreasonable.

    United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006).
    In

    making

    this

    determination,

    we

    first

    consider

    whether

    sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable.


    438.

    the

    Id. at

    A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the

    district court considered the Chapter Seven policy statements


    and the applicable 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2006) factors.
    U.S.C.

    3583(e)

    district

    court

    (2006);

    need

    not

    Crudup,
    explain
    2

    461
    its

    F.3d

    at

    reasons

    438-40.
    for

    See 18
    The

    imposing

    revocation sentence in as much detail as in imposing an original


    sentence, but it still must provide a statement of reasons for
    the sentence it imposed.
    quotation

    marks

    Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal

    omitted).

    revocation

    sentence

    is

    substantively reasonable if the district court stated a proper


    basis

    for

    concluding

    that

    the

    defendant

    should

    sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum.

    receive

    the

    Crudup, 461 F.3d

    at 440.
    Here, the terms of imprisonment imposed by the court
    do not exceed the statutory maximums applicable to each offense.
    See

    18

    2012).

    U.S.C.
    The

    3559(a),

    district

    court

    3583(e)(3)
    considered

    (West
    the

    2000

    &

    Supp.

    advisory

    range,

    3553(a) factors, and arguments posed by both parties.

    While

    the court did not robotically tick through 3553(a)s every


    subsection, it was not required to do so.

    United States v.

    Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation
    marks omitted).

    The court adequately explained its rationale

    and grounded the sentence imposed in proper bases, including


    Bakers repeated pattern of supervised release violations, the
    incarceration he had already served due to prior revocations,
    and its conclusion that Baker had proven unsupervisable.

    Thus,

    our review of the record reveals that Bakers sentence is not


    unreasonable, let alone plainly so.

    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record


    in this case and have found no meritorious issues for review.
    Accordingly,

    we

    affirm

    the

    district

    courts

    judgment.

    This

    court requires that counsel inform Baker, in writing, of the


    right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
    further review.

    If Baker requests that a petition be filed, but

    counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then


    counsel

    may

    move

    representation.

    in

    this

    court

    for

    leave

    to

    withdraw

    from

    Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof

    was served on Baker.


    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal
    before

    contentions
    this

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like