US v. Latroy Dugger
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?