US v. Steven Grant

Filing 920081016

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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