US v. Steven Grant

Filing 920081016

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4556 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEVEN JOHN HAYES GRANT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (3:00-cr-00065-nkm-3) Submitted: September 24, 2008 Decided: October 16, 2008 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Andrea L. Harris, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Julia C. Dudley, Acting United States Attorney, Jean B. Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Steven John Hayes Grant appeals his sentence of thirtysix months of imprisonment imposed after the district court revoked his supervised release. We affirm. On appeal, Grant argues that the district court erred by failing to adequately explain its imposition of a sentence that is outside the Guidelines* range. He further contends that his sentence is unnecessary under the circumstances and inconsistent with any reasonable weighing of the court's sentencing considerations. Grant does not contest the district court's decision to revoke his supervised release or the district court's Guidelines calculations. The Government responds that the district court's sentence is not unreasonable. Because Grant did not object to the district court's failure to articulate the reasons for its sentence, we review for plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993); In United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547 (4th Cir. 2005). United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2005), we held that "revocation sentences should be reviewed to determine whether they are `plainly unreasonable' with regard to those [18 U.S.C.A.] 3553(a) [West 2000 & Supp. 2008] factors applicable to supervised release revocation sentences." We recognized that analysis of a sentence imposed on revocation of supervised release involves both * U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2000). 2 procedural and substantive components. Id. at 438. A sentencing court must provide a sufficient explanation of the sentence to allow "effective review of [its] reasonableness" on appeal. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 657 (4th Cir. 2007) (probation revocation). 3553(a)'s The every court need not or "robotically "explicitly tick through every subsection," discuss 3353(a) factor on the record." F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). United States v. Johnson, 445 Our review of the record in this case leads us to conclude that the district court's reasons supporting its We nor sentencing decision are sufficiently apparent from the record. conclude that the sentence is neither procedurally substantively unreasonable. 288, 297 (4th Cir. 2008). See United States v. Finley, 531 F.3d We therefore affirm Grant's sentence. oral argument because the facts and legal We dispense with contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?