US v. Darnell Brown

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:05-cr-00812-HMH-2 Copies to all parties and the district court. [999115184].. [12-4976]

Appeal: 12-4976

Doc: 19

Filed: 05/24/2013

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4976

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARNELL LEON BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:05-cr-00812-HMH-2)

Submitted:

May 8, 2013

Decided:

May 24, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lora E. Collins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Greenville,
South
Carolina,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4976

Doc: 19

Filed: 05/24/2013

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Darnell

Leon

Brown

appeals

the

district

court’s

judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to
the

statutory

maximum

of

eighty-four

months’

imprisonment.

Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues
for appeal but questioning whether the district court abused its
discretion

in

revoking

imposing sentence.

Brown’s

supervised

release

in

Brown was informed of his right to file a

pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
Although

and

we

ordinarily

review

the

We affirm.

district

court’s

revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion, see
United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999),
Brown did not object to the district court’s revocation of his
supervised release; we therefore review for plain error.
States v.

Olano,

507

U.S.

725,

731-32

standard).

Because

Brown

admitted

substances,

firearms,

and

ammunition,

to

(1993)

(providing

possessing

the

United

district

controlled
court

was

obligated to revoke Brown’s supervised release and impose a term
of imprisonment.
we

conclude

that

See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g) (2006).
the

district

court

did

not

Accordingly,

err—plainly

or

revocation

of

otherwise—by revoking Brown’s supervised release.
In
supervised

examining
release,

a

sentence

this

court
2

imposed
“takes

upon
a

more

deferential

Appeal: 12-4976

Doc: 19

Filed: 05/24/2013

Pg: 3 of 5

appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of
discretion

than

sentences.”
Cir.

2007)

reasonableness

review

for

[G]uidelines

United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th
(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).

A

sentence

imposed upon revocation of supervised release should be affirmed
if

it

is

within

the

statutory

maximum

and

not

plainly

unreasonable.

United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th

Cir.

In

2006).

reviewing

a

revocation

sentence,

“we

first

decide whether the sentence is unreasonable,” following the same
general principles we apply to our review of original sentences.
Id.

at

438.

procedurally

Only
or

if

we

find

substantively

that

revocation

sentence

unreasonable

whether the sentence is “plainly” so.
A

a

sentence

is

will

we

is

either

determine

Id. at 439.
procedurally

reasonable

if

the district court has considered both the applicable 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006) factors, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2006), and
the policy statements set forth in Chapter Seven of the U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) (2012).
at 439.

Crudup, 461 F.3d

The district court also must provide an explanation of

its chosen sentence, although this explanation “need not be as
detailed or specific” as is required for an original sentence.
United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).
sentence

is

substantively

reasonable

if

the

district

A

court

states a proper basis for concluding that the defendant should
3

Appeal: 12-4976

Doc: 19

Filed: 05/24/2013

receive the sentence imposed.

Pg: 4 of 5

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.

“[T]he

court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke its previous
sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory
maximum.”

Id.

at

439

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).

Because Brown did not object to any aspect of his sentence, our
review is for plain error.

See United States v. Bennett, 698

F.3d 194, 199-200 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1506
(2013).
Our review of the record reveals that the district
court

committed

no

procedural

error.

Although

the

district

court plainly erred by considering § 3553(a)(2)(A), a prohibited
factor under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), we conclude that this error
did not affect Brown’s substantial rights.

See Olano, 507 U.S.

at 731-32; United States v. Hargrove, 625 F.3d 170, 183-84 (4th
Cir.

2010).

district

When

court

imposing

emphasized

Brown’s

Brown’s

revocation

breach

of

sentence,

trust,

the

observing

that Brown had continued to engage in criminal activity after
being charged in both state and federal court.
district

court

considered

several

permissible

Moreover, the
factors

under

§ 3583(e), including the need to deter Brown from engaging in
criminal activity and to protect the public.
§ 3553(a)(2)(B),
sentence

when

(C);

Bennett,

prohibited

factor

698

F.3d

at

“constituted

See 18 U.S.C.
201
only

(upholding
a

minor

fragment of court’s reasoning” and when court’s “concern with
4

Appeal: 12-4976

Doc: 19

Filed: 05/24/2013

Pg: 5 of 5

[defendant’s] breach of trust . . . far outweighed any other
concerns”).

Given the broad discretion to revoke supervised

release and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory
maximum, Brown’s sentence is reasonable.

See Crudup, 461 F.3d

at 439 (stating that, if sentence is reasonable, inquiry ends).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court

requires that counsel inform Brown, in writing, of his right to
petition

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

United

States

for

further

review.

If Brown requests that a petition be filed, but counsel

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

move

in

representation.

this

and

materials

legal
before

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Brown.
facts

court

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

5