US v. Norman Groom

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:91-cr-00005-nkm-mfu-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998490635] [10-4727]

US v. Norman Groom

Doc. 0

Case: 10-4727 Document: 21

Date Filed: 12/23/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4727 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff ­ Appellee, v. NORMAN LEE GROOMS, Defendant ­ Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:91-cr-00005-nkm-mfu-1) Submitted: November 24, 2010 Decided: December 23, 2010

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Andrea L. Harris, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine Lee, Research and Writing Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Nancy S. Healey, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-4727 Document: 21

Date Filed: 12/23/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Norman imposed on him Lee upon Grooms appeals of the his eleven-month supervised sentence release.

revocation

Grooms argues that his sentence is plainly unreasonable because consideration of the relevant factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) supports imposition of a sentence shorter than eleven months. He also contends that the district court failed

to adequately explain its reasons for his sentence and did not address factors supporting a downward variance. This revocation of court will affirm release v. step a sentence if it is 595 We affirm. imposed not F.3d after plainly 544, 546 a

supervised United The

unreasonable. (4th Cir. 2010).

States first

Thompson, in this

review

requires

determination of whether the sentence is unreasonable. States v. initial Crudup, 461 F.3d a 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). appellate

United "This posture

inquiry

takes

more

`deferential

concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion' than reasonableness review for guidelines sentences." United

States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Crudup, standard 461 of F.3d review at for 439) (applying "plainly unreasonable" Only if the

probation

revocation).

sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable does the inquiry proceed to the second step of the analysis to determine

2

Case: 10-4727 Document: 21

Date Filed: 12/23/2010

Page: 3

whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. at 438-39. A procedurally supervised reasonable if release the revocation

Crudup, 461 F.3d

sentence considered

is the

district

court

advisory policy statement range based upon Chapter Seven of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors applicable to supervised release revocation. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-40. See

A sentence is

substantively reasonable if the district court stated a proper basis for concluding the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.

"A court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a post-

conviction sentence, but it still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed." (internal quotation marks omitted). We reasonable. concerning history find that Grooms' sentence is procedurally Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547

The district court engaged counsel in a discussion an appropriate his conduct sentence leading in to light the of Grooms' past

and

instant

supervised

release violation.

The court concluded Grooms demonstrated an

unwillingness to follow the provisions of his supervised release and it sentenced him accordingly.

3

Case: 10-4727 Document: 21

Date Filed: 12/23/2010

Page: 4

Grooms maintains his sentence did not rest on a proper basis and relies to principally the on the district court's has

unwillingness

consider

lengthy

sentence

Grooms

already served for his original offense. court's approach was the correct one.

However, the district

While it did not consider

Grooms' original offense, it did consider the circumstances of his instant violation enumerated in in the context of We the applicable find

considerations

§ 3553(a).

therefore

Grooms' sentence substantively reasonable. Accordingly, judgment. legal before we affirm the district court's

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

contentions the court

would

process. AFFIRMED

4