US v. Hal Broadbent, III

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:11-cr-00163-HCM-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998992376]. [12-4345]

Appeal: 12-4345

Doc: 34

Filed: 11/30/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4345

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HAL EDWARD BROADBENT, III,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (2:11-cr-00163-HCM-1)

Submitted:

November 27, 2012

Decided:

November 30, 2012

Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt
Walter B. Dalton, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellant.
Neil H. MacBride, United States
Attorney, Richard D. Cooke, Assistant United States Attorney,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4345

Doc: 34

Filed: 11/30/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Hal Edward Broadbent, III, appeals the revocation of
his

probation

and

sentence

of

thirteen

months’

imprisonment.

Broadbent argues that his sentence is plainly unreasonable in
light of Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011).

We

affirm.
Contrary to the Government’s assertion on appeal, we
conclude that Broadbent properly preserved the Tapia issue for
appeal.

We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is not

plainly unreasonable.

United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652,

656 (4th Cir. 2007).

The first step in this review requires a

determination of “whether the sentence is unreasonable.”

United

States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006).
A

probation

revocation

sentence

is

procedurally

reasonable if the district court considered the advisory policy
statement range and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, all
of which apply to probation revocation.
656

(citing

18

U.S.C.

§ 3565(a)

Moulden, 478 F.3d at

(2006)).

A

sentence

is

substantively reasonable if the district court stated a proper
basis for imposing its selected sentence, up to the statutory
maximum.

Crudup,

461

F.3d

at

440.

“For

a

sentence

to

be

plainly unreasonable, . . . it must run afoul of clearly settled

2

Appeal: 12-4345

law.”

Doc: 34

Filed: 11/30/2012

Pg: 3 of 4

United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 548 (4th Cir.

2010).
In Tapia, the Supreme Court held that, in selecting a
sentence following conviction, a district court could not impose
or

lengthen

a

term

of

imprisonment

offender’s rehabilitation.
Tapia

applies

to

in

order

to

promote

an

Tapia, 131 S. Ct. at 2385, 2392-93.

revocation

sentences.

United

Bennett, 698 F.3d 195, 197-98 (4th Cir. 2012).

States

v.

A review of the

multiple sentencing proceedings in this case reveals that the
district court selected its chosen sentence based on Broadbent’s
continuous

refusal

probation.
would

to

comply

with

the

conditions

of

his

While the district court did opine that Broadbent

benefit

Broadbent’s

from

failure

medical
to

treatment,

comply

with

the

it

also

noted

prescribed

program created a danger to himself and others.

that

treatment

It is clear

that the district court did not impose a sentence solely to
promote rehabilitation and, thus, did not violate the mandate of
Tapia.

Our

review

of

the

record

confirms

that

Broadbent’s

sentence is also not otherwise plainly unreasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
legal

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions

are

adequately

3

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 12-4345

before

Doc: 34

this

court

Filed: 11/30/2012

and

Pg: 4 of 4

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

4