US v. Lonnie Hames, Jr.
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:95-cr-00178-MOC-8. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999785658]. [15-4367]
Appeal: 15-4367
Doc: 34
Filed: 03/31/2016
Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4367
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LONNIE HAMES, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:95-cr-00178-MOC-8)
Submitted:
March 29, 2016
Decided:
March 31, 2016
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roderick G. Davis, LAW OFFICE OF RODERICK G. DAVIS, PLLC,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose,
United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-4367
Doc: 34
Filed: 03/31/2016
Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Lonnie Hames, Jr., appeals from the 22-month sentence imposed
upon revocation of his supervised release.
On appeal, Hames
contends
procedurally
that
the
sentence
imposed
is
and
substantively unreasonable and that the district court erred by
imposing an upward departure sentence without having given prior
notice of the intent to depart.
Finding no error, plain or
otherwise, we affirm.
“A
district
court
has
broad
discretion
when
sentence upon revocation of supervised release.”
Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013).
imposing
a
United States v.
We will affirm a
revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and not
plainly unreasonable.
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-
40 (4th Cir. 2006).
We first consider whether the sentence is
procedurally or substantively unreasonable, employing the same
general
considerations
sentences.
Id. at 438.
applied
during
review
of
original
In this initial inquiry, we “take[ ] a
more deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and
the
exercise
of
discretion
[G]uidelines sentences.”
than
reasonableness
review
for
United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652,
656 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).
If we
find the sentence unreasonable, we must then determine whether it
is “plainly” so.
Id. at 657.
2
Appeal: 15-4367
A
Doc: 34
Filed: 03/31/2016
supervised
release
Pg: 3 of 5
revocation
sentence
is
procedurally
reasonable if the district court considered the Chapter 7 policy
statements in the Sentencing Guidelines and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012) factors applicable in the supervised release revocation
context, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439,
and provided sufficient explanation for the sentence imposed, see
United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).
The
district court’s explanation “need not be as detailed or specific
when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a
post-conviction sentence.”
Id.
Hames contends that the district court failed to adequately
consider and apply the sentencing factors in determining his
sentence and failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the
upward variant sentence it imposed.
We reject both of these
contentions.
First, our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
district
court
sufficiently
considered
the
statements as well as the sentencing factors.
applicable
policy
The court noted the
policy statement recommendation of an 8-to 14-month sentence and,
addressing the relevant factors, the court emphasized two factors
in particular: the need to “protect the public from further crimes
of the defendant” and the need to “afford adequate deterrence.”
18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(2)(B), (C); 3583(a)(1).
Additionally, the
court noted that this was Hames’ third violation of supervised
3
Appeal: 15-4367
Doc: 34
Filed: 03/31/2016
Pg: 4 of 5
release and concluded that an upward variant sentence was necessary
to protect the public and to provide deterrence, in light of Hames’
repeated violations.
Nor do we find any procedural error in the district court’s
justification
for
the
upward
variance
imposed.
The
court’s
statements prior to sentencing Hames reflect its view that a
sentence within the calculated policy statement range would be
insufficient given the facts and circumstances of this case, which
established
Hames’
repeated
failures
requirements of his supervision.
to
comply
with
the
We further conclude that the
court’s explanation for the selected sentence is sufficient.
Although Hames contends that the court failed to give required
notice that it would impose a sentence above the policy statement
range, such notice is not required, United States v. Ryans, 237 F.
App’x 791, 794 (4th Cir. 2007); see Irizarry v. United States, 553
U.S. 708, 716 (2008) (holding that notice requirement of Fed. R.
Crim. P. 32(h) is not applicable to variances above advisory
Guidelines ranges).
court
had
provided
Additionally, although not required, the
Hames
with
notice
when,
during
a
prior
revocation proceeding, it warned him that an upward departure would
be imposed if he committed another Class C violation of the terms
of his supervision.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Hames’ sentence
is
within
the
statutory
maximum
4
and
that
the
district
court
Appeal: 15-4367
Doc: 34
adequately
sentence.
plainly
Filed: 03/31/2016
explained
the
Pg: 5 of 5
reasons
for
the
upward
departure
We therefore conclude that the sentence imposed was not
unreasonable.
See
Crudup,
461
F.3d
at
439-40.
Accordingly, we affirm the revocation judgment.
We dispense with
oral
contentions
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
and
materials
legal
before
this
court
are
and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?