US v. Norman Groom


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
US v. Norman Groom Doc. 0 Case: 10-4727 Document: 21 Date Filed: 12/23/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4727 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. NORMAN LEE GROOMS, Defendant Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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

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?