US v. Latroy Dugger


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:06-cr-00028-FL-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999985486]. [16-4153]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4153 Doc: 30 Filed: 12/13/2016 Pg: 1 of 5 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4153 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LATROY KRISHAWAN DUGGER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:06-cr-00028-FL-1) Submitted: November 18, 2016 Decided: December 13, 2016 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-4153 Doc: 30 Filed: 12/13/2016 Pg: 2 of 5 PER CURIAM: Latroy Krishawan Dugger appeals the 46-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release term. On appeal, Dugger asserts that his sentence was plainly procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately explain its reasons for rejecting arguments in support of a downward variance. his sentencing For the reasons that follow, we affirm. A district sentence after court has revoking “broad a discretion” defendant’s in imposing supervised a release. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). We will applicable affirm a statutory revocation maximum sentence and not that is “plainly within the unreasonable.” United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 494 (2015). To determine whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we must first assess the sentence for procedural and substantive unreasonableness, considering the same general principles utilized in review of original sentences. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). In so doing, we assume “a more deferential appellate posture” than that employed in review of original sentences. F.3d at 373 (internal quotation marks omitted). Padgett, 788 Only if we find the revocation sentence unreasonable need we determine whether 2 Appeal: 16-4153 Doc: 30 Filed: 12/13/2016 it is “plainly” so. Pg: 3 of 5 United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 657 (4th Cir. 2007). A sentencing court generally must provide an “individualized assessment justifying the sentence imposed and rejection of arguments for a higher or lower sentence based on [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)].” United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 584 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). The court “need not robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every subsection” in explaining the sentence it imposes, “particularly when imposing a within-Guidelines sentence.” United States v. Powell, 650 F.3d 388, 395 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). “nonfrivolous that set should However, reasons forth address in the for the if imposing advisory party’s rejected those arguments.” the defendant a different Guidelines, arguments and a has presented sentence district explain why than judge he has United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court’s explanation for its sentence must be adequate to “demonstrate that it considered the parties’ arguments and had a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority.” Lynn, 592 F.3d at 576 (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). In the revocation context, the court’s statement of reasons need not be as specific or as detailed as that required in imposing an original sentence, “but 3 Appeal: 16-4153 Doc: 30 Filed: 12/13/2016 Pg: 4 of 5 it still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed.” Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Chapter Seven instructs that, in fashioning a revocation sentence, the court should sanction primarily the defendant’s breach of trust, while taking into account, to a limited degree, the seriousness of the underlying violation and the criminal history of the violator.” United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 641 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). The court also should consider, among other factors, “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant,” as well as the need for the sentence “to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct” and “to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant.” § 3553(a)(1), (2)(B), (enumerating applicable court’s explanation (C); see 18 sentencing is brief, U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors). “[t]he 18 U.S.C. context Even (2012) where surrounding the a district court’s explanation may imbue it with enough content for us § 3553(a) to evaluate factors and both whether whether it the did court so considered properly.” the United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 381 (4th Cir. 2006); see Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547. Our review of the record leads us to conclude the court provided an adequate explanation to support Dugger’s revocation 4 Appeal: 16-4153 Doc: 30 sentence. Filed: 12/13/2016 Pg: 5 of 5 As Dugger acknowledges, the court’s statements at the close of the hearing evidence its consideration of counsel’s sentencing arguments and Dugger’s allocution. explanation was adequately brief, expressed § 3553(a) factors its its when comments during contemplation rejecting While the court’s of Dugger’s the the hearing applicable arguments for a variance. The court appropriately emphasized the significant breach trust of produced by Dugger’s return to the trafficking conduct underlying his original offense. drug The court demonstrated its consideration of Dugger’s offense, history, and characteristics by observing that Dugger had not reformed his conduct, despite his advancing age and family support. of the significant deference accorded a district In light court when imposing a revocation sentence, see Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547, we conclude these statements articulated sufficient support for the court’s determination that Dugger’s conduct warranted a sentence within the policy statement range. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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 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?