US v. Kristopher Huffman

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cr-00043-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999316003].. [13-4880]

Appeal: 13-4880

Doc: 23

Filed: 03/14/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4880

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KRISTOPHER AARON HUFFMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington.
Robert C. Chambers,
Chief District Judge. (3:11-cr-00043-1)

Submitted:

March 10, 2014

Decided:

March 14, 2014

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian J. Kornbrath, Acting Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D.
Byrne, Appellate Counsel, Lex A. Coleman, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.
R.
Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Joseph F. Adams,
Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4880

Doc: 23

Filed: 03/14/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Kristopher Aaron Huffman appeals the sentence of ten
months of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of probation.

On

appeal, Huffman does not contest the district court’s decision
to

revoke

his

probation,

and

acknowledges

that

the

district

court “properly calculated both advisory Guidelines ranges and
gave

the

parties

sentence.”
sentence

an

opportunity

to

argue

(Appellant’s Br. at 11).

is

plainly

unreasonable

for

an

appropriate

Huffman argues that his

because

the

district

court

procedurally erred by failing “to adequately explain why the
sentence
necessary’

it

imposed
to

was

comply

(Appellant’s Br. at 8).

‘sufficient,

with

the

but

not

purposes

greater

of

than

sentencing.”

We affirm.

Upon a finding of a probation violation, the district
court may revoke probation and resentence the defendant to any
sentence within the statutory maximum for the original offense.
18 U.S.C. § 3565(a) (2012); United States v. Schaefer, 120 F.3d
505,

507

revocation
sentences,

(4th

Cir.

1997).

sentences,
to

determine

This

like
if

court

supervised
they

are

“review[s]
release

plainly

probation
revocation

unreasonable.”

United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007).
The first step in this analysis is a determination of whether
the sentence was unreasonable.

United States v. Crudup, 461

F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006).
2

Appeal: 13-4880

Doc: 23

Filed: 03/14/2014

Although

a

district

Pg: 3 of 4

court

must

consider

the

policy

statements in Chapter Seven of the sentencing guidelines along
with the statutory requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012),
“the

court

ultimately

has

broad

discretion

to

revoke

its

previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the
statutory maximum.”

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439 (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted); see also Moulden, 478 F.3d at 65657.
a

“A court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing

revocation

sentence

as

it

must

be

when

imposing

a

post-

conviction sentence, but it still must provide a statement of
reasons for the sentence imposed.”
595

F.3d

544,

omitted).

547

(4th

Cir.

United States v. Thompson,

2010)

(internal

quotation

marks

“We may be hard-pressed to find any explanation for

within-range revocation sentences insufficient given the amount
of

deference

sentences

.

we
.

.

afford
.”

district
Id.

If

courts
a

when

sentence

imposing
imposed

these

after

a

revocation is not unreasonable, this court will not proceed to
the second prong of the analysis — whether the sentence was
plainly unreasonable.

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439.

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
district

court

sentencing
reasonable.

provided

determination,
Thus,

“it

an

adequate

and

the

necessarily

sentence is not plainly unreasonable.”
3

explanation

of

its

sentence

is

procedurally

follows

that

[Huffman’s]

Id. at 440.

Appeal: 13-4880

Doc: 23

Filed: 03/14/2014

Pg: 4 of 4

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4