US v. Clarence Burgess

Filing 920090515

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4857 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. CLARENCE BURGESS, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (2:05-cr-00142-1) Submitted: April 22, 2009 Decided: May 15, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, Christian M. Capece, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Karen B. Schommer, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Clarence conspiracy to Burgess pled guilty to one and count of possess, manufacture, pass, utter false instruments, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. 371 (West 2004), and was sentenced in November 2005 to ten months' imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. the district court revoked Burgess' In August 2008, release and supervised sentenced him to twenty-four months' imprisonment. On appeal, Burgess contends that his twenty-four month prison sentence is plainly unreasonable because it does not further the purposes of supervised release. A release statutory Finding no error, we affirm. imposed if not after it revocation is within of the supervised applicable United In sentence be will affirmed and is maximum plainly unreasonable. States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). determining whether a sentence is "plainly unreasonable," this court first assesses whether the sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. Id. at 438. In evaluating the reasonableness of a revocation sentence, this court views issues of fact and the district court's exercise of discretion with deference. to revoke Id. at 439. its previous A district court has broad discretion sentence and impose Id. going a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. district court's statement of 2 reasons for Moreover, a beyond the Guidelines' non-binding policy statement "in imposing a sentence after revoking a defendant's supervised release need not be as specific guidelines mandatory." as has that been were, required before when courts departed to from be Booker, considered Id. at 439 (quoting United States v. Lewis, 424 F.3d 239, 245 (2d Cir. 2005)). A sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court considered the Sentencing Guidelines' Chapter Seven policy statements (2006). and See the pertinent 461 factors F.3d in 18 440. U.S.C. A 3553(a) is Crudup, at sentence substantively reasonable if the district court stated a proper basis for concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. See id. Only if a sentence is found procedurally or substantively unreasonable will this court "then decide whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable." Id. at 439. In this case, it is undisputed that Burgess' twentyfour month prison sentence falls within the applicable statutory maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment. 371, 3583(e)(3), 3559(a) (West 2006). See 18 U.S.C.A. Additionally, Burgess does not dispute that the district court properly calculated and considered the Guidelines' policy statement range of three to nine months' imprisonment. Further, Burgess does not assert 3 that the district court failed to consider any pertinent sentencing factor under 3553(a). Moreover, proper range basis for the its by district to court sufficiently Burgess stated above a decision the sentence The the recommended Guidelines. district court's comments at the revocation hearing indicate that it imposed a sentence above the advisory policy statement range as a result of Burgess' repeated breaches of trust following instances of leniency. See USSG Ch. 7, Pt. A, intro cmt. 3(b) ("[A]t revocation the court should sanction primarily the defendant's breach of trust."); see also Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440 (affirming the imposition had of the statutory violated on maximum numerous broad sentence when of the his a appellant supervised repeatedly conditions discretion release). Based the that district court has to revoke a term of supervised release and impose a prison term up to and including the statutory maximum, Burgess' sentence is not unreasonable. Therefore, we find that See Crudup, 461 Burgess' sentence is not plainly unreasonable. F.3d at 438-39. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment revoking Burgess' supervised release and imposing a twenty-four month prison term. facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because the are adequately presented in the contentions 4 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5

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?