US v. Marcus Baskerville

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:02-cr-00410-CCB-4 Copies to all parties and the district court. [999593418]. [14-4941]

Appeal: 14-4941

Doc: 23

Filed: 06/01/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4941

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MARCUS STEVE BASKERVILLE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
Judge. (1:02-cr-00410-CCB-4)

Submitted:

May 28, 2015

Decided:

June 1, 2015

Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Joanna Silver, OFFICE OF
THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Andrea L. Smith,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4941

Doc: 23

Filed: 06/01/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
In the proceedings below, the district court found that
Marcus Baskerville violated certain conditions of his supervised
release, revoked his release, and sentenced him to thirty months
of

imprisonment.

On

appeal,

Baskerville

claims

that

the

sentence imposed by the district court was plainly unreasonable
because the court did not adequately consider the applicable
policy statement range in Chapter Seven of the United States
Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual.

We

find

no

merit

in

this

contention and we therefore affirm.
We review “whether or not sentences imposed upon revocation
of supervised release are within the prescribed statutory range
and are not plainly unreasonable.”
595

F.3d

544,

omitted).
court

must

546

(4th

Cir.

2010)

United States v. Thompson,
(internal

quotation

marks

Thus, for us to reverse, any error by the district
not

only

clearly settled law.”

be

unreasonable,

“it

must

run

afoul

of

Id. at 548.

In reviewing a revocation sentence for reasonableness, we
take “a more deferential appellate posture concerning issues of
fact and the exercise of discretion than reasonableness review
for guidelines sentences.”

United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d

652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The district court “need not be as detailed or specific when

2

Appeal: 14-4941

Doc: 23

Filed: 06/01/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a
post-conviction sentence.”
At

the

provide

same

some

revocation
settled.

time,

basis

sentence,

for

Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547.
“the

appellate

however

Id. at 548.

district

minimal

court’s

review
that

obligation

when
basis

imposing
may

be,”

to
a
is

In that vein, “the sentencing court must

consider the policy statements contained in Chapter 7, including
the policy statement range, as helpful assistance.”

Moulden,

478 F.3d at 656 (internal quotation marks omitted).

But “the

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

United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439 (4th Cir.

2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Baskerville’s
sentence was neither plainly nor otherwise unreasonable.

While

the district court did not resolve a disputed question about the
applicable policy statement range, it clearly and extensively
considered

the

two

potentially

applicable

policy

statement

ranges (as well as the factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553
(2012)), in fashioning a sentence beneath the statutory maximum.
Accordingly, we affirm.

3

Appeal: 14-4941

Doc: 23

Filed: 06/01/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

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