US v. Shane Luers

Filing 920090814

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4161

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)

Submitted:

July 21, 2009

Decided:

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Maryland

period

supervised

release.

After

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

(1) despite

numerous

failed

follow

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.

AFFIRMED

3