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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . [16-4153]
Pg: 1 of 5
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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)
November 18, 2016
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 5
imposed following the revocation of his supervised release term.
procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to
arguments in support of a downward variance.
For the reasons
that follow, we affirm.
United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).
United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir.) (internal
quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 494 (2015).
unreasonable, we must first assess the sentence for procedural
and substantive unreasonableness, considering the same general
principles utilized in review of original sentences.
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006).
doing, we assume “a more deferential appellate posture” than
that employed in review of original sentences.
F.3d at 373 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Only if we find
the revocation sentence unreasonable need we determine whether
it is “plainly” so.
Pg: 3 of 5
United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 657
(4th Cir. 2007).
“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
rejected those arguments.”
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
arguments and had a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal
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
Pg: 4 of 5
it still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence
Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks
“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).
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.”
district court’s explanation may imbue it with enough content
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
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.
While the court’s
The court appropriately emphasized the significant
trafficking conduct underlying his original offense.
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.
imposing a revocation sentence, see Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547,
we conclude these statements articulated sufficient support for
sentence within the policy statement range.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?