US v. Edward Shipman

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:03-cr-00044-F-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998464153] [10-4337]

US v. Edward Shipman

Doc. 0

Case: 10-4337 Document: 21

Date Filed: 11/12/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4337 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EDWARD VENEZ SHIPMAN, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:03-cr-00044-F-1) Submitted: October 29, 2010 Decided: November 12, 2010

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, James E. Todd, Jr., Research and Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. MayParker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-4337 Document: 21

Date Filed: 11/12/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Edward Venez Shipman appeals the twenty-four-month

sentence he received upon revocation of his supervised release. He contends that the district court imposed a plainly

unreasonable sentence, failing to address mitigating factors and to provide sufficient reason for a sentence above the 7-13-month revocation range set out in Chapter 7 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2009). We affirm.

The district court has broad discretion to impose a sentence upon revoking a defendant's supervised release. States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). United We will

affirm unless the sentence is "plainly unreasonable" in light of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. United

States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). We unreasonable." must first "decide whether the sentence is

Id. at 438.

In doing so, we "follow generally

the procedural and substantive considerations" used in reviewing original sentences. if the district in Id.. A sentence is procedurally reasonable has of considered the the policy and the statements applicable

court 7

contained

Chapter

guidelines

§ 3553(a) factors, id. at 440, and has adequately explained the sentence chosen, though it need not explain the sentence in as much detail as when imposing the original sentence. 595 F.3d at 547. Thompson,

A sentence is substantively reasonable if the 2

Case: 10-4337 Document: 21

Date Filed: 11/12/2010

Page: 3

district court states a proper basis for its imposition of a sentence up to the statutory maximum. If, after considering the above, we Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. are convinced that the

sentence is not unreasonable, we will affirm. Under Shipman's this court's is not deferential

Id. at 439. of review,

standard or

sentence

procedurally

substantively

unreasonable.

Shipman argues that the district court failed to He also

consider his inability to secure a stable residence.

claims that the court failed to give sufficient reasons for the extent of its variance above the guideline range, and thus

failed to follow the mandate in § 3553(a) to impose a sentence "sufficient statute's probation but not greater than necessary" The about court to also to fulfill heard the the

sentencing officer's

purposes. testimony

his

effort

supervise

Shipman for over a year and Shipman's lack of cooperation, as evidenced by his repeated marijuana use, additional criminal

conduct, failure to stay in contact with the probation officer, and unwillingness to return to a residential reentry center to remedy his homeless state. in which Last, he the district that court heard

Shipman's

statement

asserted

the

probation

officer had failed to help him despite his requests for help. The district court expressly considered the advisory Chapter 7 guideline range of 7-13 months. However, the court

determined that the guideline range did not adequately account 3

Case: 10-4337 Document: 21

Date Filed: 11/12/2010

Page: 4

for Shipman's "pattern of refusing to follow the rules," thus impliedly accepting the probation officer's version of events during his period of supervised release. "should sanction primarily the A revocation sentence breach of trust."

defendant's

USSG ch. 7, pt. A, intro. cmt. 3(b).

We conclude that Shipman's

twenty-four-month sentence was not unreasonable. We district facts therefore We affirm the with are and sentence oral imposed by the the the the

court. legal before

dispense

argument

because in aid

and

contentions the court

adequately argument

presented not

materials

would

decisional process. AFFIRMED

4