US v. Damion Roscoe

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:06-cr-00534-RDB-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999300007]. [13-4345]

Appeal: 13-4345

Doc: 25

Filed: 02/20/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4345

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAMION ROSCOE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:06-cr-00534-RDB-1)

Submitted:

January 30, 2014

Decided:

February 20, 2014

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public
Federal Public Defender,
Rod J. Rosenstein, United
Assistant United States
Appellee.

Defender, LaKeytria Felder, Assistant
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant.
States Attorney, Justin S. Herring,
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4345

Doc: 25

Filed: 02/20/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Damion Roscoe admitted to violating the terms of his
supervised release by absconding from supervision.

He appeals

from the twenty-four-month revocation sentence imposed by the
district

court.

unreasonable.

He

contends

that

this

sentence

was

plainly

We affirm.

We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of
supervised

release

if

it

is

within

the

prescribed

statutory

range and not plainly unreasonable.

United States v. Crudup,

461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006).

First we consider whether

the

sentence

unreasonable.
more

imposed

Id. at 438.

deferential

exercise

of

is

posture

discretion

procedurally

or

In this initial inquiry, we take a
concerning
than

issues

that

of

v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007).
procedurally

or

substantively

then decide whether it is “plainly” so.
Here,

the

district

court

fact

undertaken

reasonableness review for Guidelines sentences.

sentence

substantively

and
for

the
the

United States
If we find the

unreasonable,

we

must

Id. at 657.
correctly

calculated

and

considered the advisory policy statement range, considered the
relevant factors, and gave the parties an opportunity to present
argument.

The sentence was procedurally reasonable.

See United

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

The

court also sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing a
2

Appeal: 13-4345

Doc: 25

Filed: 02/20/2014

Pg: 3 of 4

sentence outside the policy statement range.

See Crudup, 461

F.3d at 440.
Roscoe contends that, in determining the sentence, the
district

court

improperly

considered

the

seriousness

of

the

offense and the need for the sentence imposed to promote respect
for the law.

Because Roscoe did not object in the district

court to the explanation of his sentence, we review for plain
error.

United States v. Hargrove, 625 F.3d 170, 183-84 (4th

Cir. 2010); see United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34
(1993).
The district court’s consideration of the seriousness
of the offense and the need to promote respect for the law was
in

conjunction

U.S.C.

§

with

3583(e)

its

consideration

(2012).

of

Specifically,

the

factors

Roscoe’s

in

18

failure

to

respect the terms of the court’s supervised release order is
relevant to the nature and circumstances of his offense, his
history and characteristics, and the need to protect the public
from further crimes by Roscoe.

“Although § 3583(e) enumerates

the factors a district court should consider when formulating a
revocation sentence, it does not expressly prohibit a court from
referencing other relevant factors omitted from the statute.”
United

States

v.

Webb,

738

F.3d

638,

641

(4th

Cir.

2013).

Because the district court properly considered the seriousness
of the offense and promoting respect for the law in conjunction
3

Appeal: 13-4345

with

Doc: 25

the

Filed: 02/20/2014

enumerated

district court.
non-enumerated
procedurally

factors,

Pg: 4 of 4

we

find

no

plain

error

by

the

See id. at 642 (concluding that reference to
factor

does

unreasonable

not

when

render

considered

revocation
in

sentence

conjunction

with

enumerated 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors).
Accordingly,

we

conclude

that

the

twenty-four-month

revocation sentence is not plainly unreasonable.
affirm the revocation judgment.

We therefore

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4