Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 29 views

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Lonnie Hames Jr.'s 22-month sentence imposed after revocation of his supervised release. The Court found that the district court adequately considered the sentencing factors and policy statements, and provided sufficient explanation for the upward variant sentence. Specifically, the district court emphasized the need to protect the public and provide deterrence given Hames' repeated violations of his supervised release terms. The Court also noted that notice of an upward departure is not required for violations of supervised release.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    29 views5 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Lonnie Hames Jr.'s 22-month sentence imposed after revocation of his supervised release. The Court found that the district court adequately considered the sentencing factors and policy statements, and provided sufficient explanation for the upward variant sentence. Specifically, the district court emphasized the need to protect the public and provide deterrence given Hames' repeated violations of his supervised release terms. The Court also noted that notice of an upward departure is not required for violations of supervised release.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-03-31 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-4367

    Original Title

    United States v. Lonnie Hames, Jr., 4th Cir. (2016)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Lonnie Hames Jr.'s 22-month sentence imposed after revocation of his supervised release. The Court found that the district court adequately considered the sentencing factors and policy statements, and provided sufficient explanation for the upward variant sentence. Specifically, the district court emphasized the need to protect the public and provide deterrence given Hames' repeated violations of his supervised release terms. The Court also noted that notice of an upward departure is not required for violations of supervised release.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    29 views5 pages

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Lonnie Hames Jr.'s 22-month sentence imposed after revocation of his supervised release. The Court found that the district court adequately considered the sentencing factors and policy statements, and provided sufficient explanation for the upward variant sentence. Specifically, the district court emphasized the need to protect the public and provide deterrence given Hames' repeated violations of his supervised release terms. The Court also noted that notice of an upward departure is not required for violations of supervised release.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    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.

    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

    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.

    supervised

    release

    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 courts 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

    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 courts
    justification

    for

    the

    upward

    variance

    imposed.

    The

    courts

    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

    courts 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.
    Appx 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

    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

    adequately
    sentence.
    plainly

    explained

    the

    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

    You might also like