US v. Jerome Farmer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JEROME KINTE FARMER, Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:02-cr-00312-H-1)
July 10, 2009
July 20, 2009
Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Jerome Kinte Farmer appeals his sentence to twentyfour months in prison imposed in the district court's judgment revoking challenge supervised the release. court's On appeal, that Farmer he does not the
conditions of his supervised release, but he contends that his sentence is plainly unreasonable. We affirm.
We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed statutory
range and not plainly unreasonable. 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006).
United States v. Crudup, We first consider whether Id.
the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. at 438.
While a district court must consider the Chapter 7
policy statements, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Ch. 7, Pt. B (2007), and the statutory requirements and factors applicable to revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e)
(2006), the district court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke the previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. Id. at 438-39. Only if we find
the sentence procedurally or substantively unreasonable, must we decide whether it is "plainly" unreasonable. Id. at 439.
The district court properly determined that Farmer's Chapter 7 policy statement range was twenty-four months. U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2006); USSG 2 § 7B1.4. In See 18 its
sentence, the district court noted that it had considered the policy statements in Chapter 7, and the court sentenced Farmer to twenty-four months in prison. While Farmer acknowledges his
sentence "comported with the advisory guideline imprisonment," he contends it "contravenes the policy articulated in Chapter 7, and the sentence is therefore plainly unreasonable." Specifically, Farmer argues his sentence runs afoul of Chapter 7 commentary explaining a revocation sentence "should sanction primarily the defendant's breach of trust, while taking into account, to a limited degree, the seriousness of the
underlying violation and the criminal history of the violator." See USSG ch. 7, pt. A, cmt. 3(b). We disagree. The same
commentary notes revocation policy statements provide "for three broad grades of violations [that] permit proportionally longer terms for more serious violations." Id. It is undisputed that
Farmer's most serious violation was Grade A, and with a criminal history category IV and two-year statutory maximum, his Chapter 7 range was twenty-four months. We conclude Farmer's sentence
comports with Chapter 7 and is not plainly unreasonable. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We
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?