US v. Randy Baker

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:01-cr-00045-MOC-1,3:01-cr-00145-MOC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998992375].. [12-4364]

Appeal: 12-4364

Doc: 25

Filed: 11/30/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4364

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RANDY BAKER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:01-cr-00045-MOC-1; 3:01-cr-00145-MOC-1)

Submitted:

November 27, 2012

Decided:

November 30, 2012

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henderson Hill, Director, Ann L. Hester, Assistant Federal
Defender, Douglas E. Roberts, Staff Attorney, FEDERAL DEFENDERS
OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4364

Doc: 25

Filed: 11/30/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Randy

Baker

revoking

his

imposing

concurrent

sentences

months’

imprisonment.

On

pursuant

to

two

appeals

concurrent

Anders

v.

the

terms
of

district
of

supervised

twenty-two

appeal,

counsel

California,

court’s

386

release

months’

has

and

filed

U.S.

order

a

738

and
ten

brief

(1967),

certifying that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal but
questioning

whether

the

unreasonable sentence.

district

court

imposed

a

plainly

Baker was notified of his right to file

a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.
has declined to file a response brief.

The Government

We affirm.

A district court possesses broad discretion to impose
a

sentence

revoking

a

defendant’s

supervised

release

term.

United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).
We

will

within

affirm
the

a

sentence

statutory

imposed

maximum

and

upon
not

revocation

“plainly

if

it

is

unreasonable.”

United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006).
In

making

this

determination,

we

first

consider

whether

sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable.
438.

the

Id. at

A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the

district court considered the Chapter Seven policy statements
and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors.
U.S.C.

§ 3583(e)

district

court

(2006);

need

not

Crudup,
explain
2

461
its

F.3d

at

reasons

438-40.
for

See 18
The

imposing

a

Appeal: 12-4364

Doc: 25

Filed: 11/30/2012

Pg: 3 of 4

revocation sentence in as much detail as in imposing an original
sentence, but “it still must provide a statement of reasons for
the sentence it imposed.”
quotation

marks

Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal

omitted).

A

revocation

sentence

is

substantively reasonable if the district court stated a proper
basis

for

concluding

that

the

defendant

should

sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum.

receive

the

Crudup, 461 F.3d

at 440.
Here, the terms of imprisonment imposed by the court
do not exceed the statutory maximums applicable to each offense.
See

18

(West

2000

the

advisory

range,

§ 3553(a) factors, and arguments posed by both parties.

While

2012).

U.S.C.
The

§§ 3559(a),

district

court

3583(e)(3)
considered

&

Supp.

the court did not “robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every
subsection,” it was not required to do so.

United States v.

Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation
marks omitted).

The court adequately explained its rationale

and grounded the sentence imposed in proper bases, including
Baker’s repeated pattern of supervised release violations, the
incarceration he had already served due to prior revocations,
and its conclusion that Baker had proven unsupervisable.

Thus,

our review of the record reveals that Baker’s sentence is not
unreasonable, let alone plainly so.

3

Appeal: 12-4364

Doc: 25

Filed: 11/30/2012

Pg: 4 of 4

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

we

affirm

the

district

court’s

judgment.

This

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

If Baker 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 Baker.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

4