US v. Shondreka Shippy
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. SHONDREKA J. SHIPPY, Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:09-cr-00576-HMH-2)
May 3, 2010
May 24, 2010
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jessica Salvini, SALVINI & BENNETT, LLC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Kevin F. McDonald, Acting United States Attorney, William J. Watkins, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Shondreka Shippy appeals her conviction and
thirty-month sentence after pleading guilty to one count of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (2006). Shippy asserts
that the district court erred when it: (i) sentenced her without expressing a specific rationale for the sentence imposed; and (ii) overruled her objection based on her leadership role in the criminal activity to which she pled guilty. Taking Shippy's
assertions in reverse order, we find that the district court did not err when it applied the leadership enhancement to Shippy's offense level and that the district court's explanation for
Shippy's sentence was sufficient and, accordingly, affirm the district court's judgment. The district court's determination that Shippy had a leadership role in the bank fraud scheme is a factual finding that we review for clear error. 568 F.3d 125, 147-48 (4th Cir. U.S. a See United States v. Kellam, 2009). Sentencing defendant To qualify for a
organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive." Indicia of
leadership or organizational roles, as opposed to managerial or supervisory roles, include: (1) the exercise of decision-making authority; (2) the nature of 2 participation in the offense;
(3) the recruitment of accomplices; (4) the claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime; (5) the degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense; (6) the nature and scope of the illegal activity; and (7) the degree of control and authority exercised over others. n.4. USSG § 3B1.1, cmt.
"Leadership over only one other participant is sufficient United States v.
as long as there is some control exercised." Rashwan, 328 F.3d 160, 166 (4th Cir. 2003).
Moreover, more than
one person may qualify as a leader or organizer of a criminal association or conspiracy. Shippy relies USSG § 3B1.1, cmt. n.4. on this court's decision in United
States v. Chambers, 985 F.2d 1263 (4th Cir. 1993), and asserts that her sentence should be vacated because the district court failed to provide specific reasons for applying the enhancement. It is true that, in Chambers, this court vacated the district court's sentence and remanded for further proceedings because, "without specific factual findings showing that the district
court evaluated the defendant's role in the offense in light of the factors in [USSG § 3B1.1] of . this . ., we cannot Id. conduct at 1269.
Unlike in Chambers, however, we can discern from the district court's comments and discussions with those present at Shippy's sentencing, as well as its explicit adoption of the presentence investigation report's detailed 3 factual findings and
calculations, that the district court evaluated Shippy's role in the bank fraud scheme in light of the USSG § 3B1.1 factors. Accordingly, we reject Shippy's assertion. We also find that the district court's explanation for the sentence it imposed did not amount to procedural error.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), this court reviews a sentence standard for of reasonableness, for using an abuse Gall of v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). review requires the court to ensure
The first step in this that the district court
committed no significant procedural error. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Procedural errors
include "failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based
on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence -- including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range." Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
For instance, "the district court must state in open court the particular reasons supporting its chosen sentence
[and] set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that [the sentencing judge] has considered the parties' arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority." United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th 4
Cir. 2009). a selected
In evaluating the district court's explanation for sentence, this court has consistently held that,
while a district court must consider the statutory factors and explain its sentence, it need not explicitly reference 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) or discuss every factor on the record,
particularly when the district court imposes a sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines range. 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). United States v. Johnson, At the same time, the
district court "may not presume that the Guidelines range is reasonable," but "must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented." The elaborate or district lengthy[,]" Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. court's however. explanation Carter, "need 564 F.3d not at be 330.
"That is especially true where, as here, the sentence is inside the advisory guidelines range." United States v. Johnson,
587 F.3d 625, 639 (4th Cir. 2009). was quite explicit that district
As we recently noted: "Gall courts should provide more
significant justifications for major departures than for minor ones. But when a district court does not depart or vary at all,
it may provide a less extensive, while still individualized, explanation." brackets themselves Id. (internal "This many ways citations, is because to quotation guidelines the marks and
omitted). are in
reflect approximately two decades of close attention to federal 5
sentencing policy." omitted). If, and
Id. (internal quotation marks and citation
procedurally reasonable can the court consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed. 328. Carter, 564 F.3d at
We presume that a sentence within the Guidelines range is See United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193
(4th Cir. 2007). The record of Shippy's sentencing hearing "make[s]
clear that the sentencing judge considered [Shippy's] evidence and arguments in fashioning its sentence[,]" and that it
"understood [Shippy's] arguments for a [concurrent] sentence and had reasons for rejecting those arguments." United States v.
Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 584 (4th Cir. 2010) (distinguishing Lynn's case from the situation faced by the sentencing court in Rita and recognizing at that "[n]o such and discussion that "the or questioning time the
district court even acknowledged the defendant's arguments was after it had imposed sentence" and even then "did so
obliquely"); see also Rita, 551 U.S. at 356 ("The sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties' arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority."). The record also establishes that the district court adequately 6
statute's objectives would be accomplished with the sentence he chose. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 54-56 (considering the district
court's colloquy with the Government to determine whether the district court adequately considered the relevant § 3553(a)
factors before fashioning its sentence). the reasonableness of Shippy's
We accordingly presume sentence.
Allen, 491 F.3d at 193. Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court's judgment. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional
contentions the court
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?