US v. Shane Luers
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHANE LAWRENCE LUERS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00224-JFM-1)
July 21, 2009
August 14, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Sapna Mirchandani, Staff Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Richard C. Kay, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Shane Lawrence Luers was convicted in 2000 in the
Southern District of Florida of stealing government property, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 641 (West 2000 & Supp. 2009), robbery and conspiracy under the Hobbs Act, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2006), and carrying a firearm during a crime of
violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West 2000 & Supp. 2009). to His serve case his was transferred of to the District of
violating his conditions of release on numerous occasions, Luers was ultimately sentenced to two years of imprisonment. Luers appeals alleging that his sentence was plainly unreasonable because the district court failed to calculate his applicable advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 7-13 months, failed to determine whether a sentence within that range would satisfy 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2009), and
failed to provide compelling reasons for nearly doubling the high end of the sentencing range. we affirm. We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed statutory For the reasons that follow,
range and is not plainly unreasonable. 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006).
United States v. Crudup,
District courts ultimately
have "broad discretion" to revoke a previous sentence and impose 2
a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum.
Id. at 439.
The district court did not need to calculate Luers' advisory sentencing range, as it was common knowledge by his fifth supervised release hearing that the range was 7-13 months. Moreover, defense counsel had reiterated that range at the final hearing. The district court's reasons for not sentencing Luers
within his advisory sentencing range, and instead sentencing him to two years of imprisonment, chances, are Luers clear from to the record: his
conditions of supervised release (and thus a longer sentence would promote respect for the law); (2) Luers clearly needed help with his addiction to alcohol and his two-year sentence might provide him eligibility for an intensive substance abuse program while in prison; and (3) the public needed protection from a man who refused to stop drinking alcohol and follow other basic supervised release conditions, despite the best efforts of the district judge, the probation officer, and others. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?