US v. Sanchez Horlbeck

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:02-cr-00821-PMD-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998919268]. [12-4140]

Appeal: 12-4140

Doc: 22

Filed: 08/20/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4140

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
SANCHEZ R. HORLBECK.
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:02-cr-00821-PMD-1)

Submitted:

August 16, 2012

Decided:

August 20, 2012

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cameron
J.
Blazer,
Assistant
Federal
Public
Defender,
Charleston,
South
Carolina,
for
Appellant.
Peter
Thomas
Phillips, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4140

Doc: 22

Filed: 08/20/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Sanchez
sentence

R.

Horlbeck

imposed

upon

appeals

revocation

of

from
his

his

thirty-month

supervised

release.

Horlbeck admitted two Grade A, one Grade B, and two Grade C
violations

related

to

distribution

and

possession

of

illegal

drugs, associating with persons engaged in criminal activity,
and

failure

to

submit

complete

monthly

reports.

On

appeal,

counsel has filed an Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
brief stating that there are no meritorious issues, but raising
whether Horlbeck’s sentence was plainly unreasonable.

Although

advised of his right to do so, Horlbeck has not filed a pro se
supplemental brief.
A

We affirm.

district

court

has

broad

discretion

to

impose

sentence upon revoking a defendant’s supervised release.
States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).

a

United
We will

affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release
if it is within the applicable statutory maximum and is not
“plainly unreasonable.”

United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433,

439-40 (4th Cir. 2006).

In determining whether a revocation

sentence is plainly unreasonable, we first assess the sentence
for

reasonableness,

substantive
original

“follow[ing]

considerations

sentences.”

Id.

that
at

generally
we

employ

438.

A

the
in

procedural
our

review

supervised

and
of

release

revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district
2

Appeal: 12-4140

Doc: 22

Filed: 08/20/2012

Pg: 3 of 4

court considered the Sentencing Guidelines’ Chapter 7 advisory
policy statements and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors
that

it

is

permitted

revocation case.

to

consider

in

a

supervised

See Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439.

release

Although the

court need not explain the reasons for imposing a revocation
sentence

in

as

much

detail

as

when

it

imposes

an

original

sentence, “it still must provide a statement of reasons for the
sentence

imposed.”

quotation

marks

Thompson,

595

omitted).

A

F.3d

at

547

revocation

(internal

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.
Only

if

a

sentence

unreasonable

will

is

we

plainly unreasonable.”
After
revocation

“then

procedurally

decide

whether

or

substantively

the

sentence

is

Id. at 439.

review

sentence

found

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.

of
is

the

record,

not

we

plainly

conclude

that

unreasonable.

the
The

thirty-month prison term does not exceed the applicable maximum
allowed by statute.
of

Horlbeck’s

The district court considered the argument

counsel,

the

Guidelines

advisory

range,

the

recommendation of the Government, and addressed on the record
Horlbeck’s significant criminal history and inability to comply
with

supervised

readiness

and

release
drug

even

after

treatment
3

participation

programs.

See

in
18

work
U.S.C.

Appeal: 12-4140

Doc: 22

Filed: 08/20/2012

Pg: 4 of 4

§ 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(C); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
Ch. 7, Pt. A, introductory cmt. 3(b) (2011). The district court
adequately explained its rationale for imposing sentence, and
the

reasons

relied

upon

are

proper

bases

for

the

sentence

imposed.
Accordingly, we conclude that Horlbeck’s sentence was
reasonable, and we affirm the district court’s judgment.

In

accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.

This court

requires that counsel inform Horlbeck, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review.

If Horlbeck requests that a petition be filed, but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Horlbeck.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

4