Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 97 views

    United States v. Donnie Bergeron, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Donnie Bergeron's two-year sentence and one-year supervised release term that were imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. The Court found Bergeron's sentence to be procedurally and substantively reasonable. At the sentencing hearing, the district court reasonably considered the applicable policy statements and §3553(a) factors, including Bergeron's criminal history and the need for deterrence and public protection. As the district court provided a proper basis for imposing the statutory maximum sentence, the Court of Appeals found no error in the sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Donnie Bergeron, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    97 views4 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Donnie Bergeron's two-year sentence and one-year supervised release term that were imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. The Court found Bergeron's sentence to be procedurally and substantively reasonable. At the sentencing hearing, the district court reasonably considered the applicable policy statements and §3553(a) factors, including Bergeron's criminal history and the need for deterrence and public protection. As the district court provided a proper basis for imposing the statutory maximum sentence, the Court of Appeals found no error in the sentence.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-03-12 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-5055

    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 Donnie Bergeron's two-year sentence and one-year supervised release term that were imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. The Court found Bergeron's sentence to be procedurally and substantively reasonable. At the sentencing hearing, the district court reasonably considered the applicable policy statements and §3553(a) factors, including Bergeron's criminal history and the need for deterrence and public protection. As the district court provided a proper basis for imposing the statutory maximum sentence, the Court of Appeals found no error in the sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    97 views4 pages

    United States v. Donnie Bergeron, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Donnie Bergeron's two-year sentence and one-year supervised release term that were imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. The Court found Bergeron's sentence to be procedurally and substantively reasonable. At the sentencing hearing, the district court reasonably considered the applicable policy statements and §3553(a) factors, including Bergeron's criminal history and the need for deterrence and public protection. As the district court provided a proper basis for imposing the statutory maximum sentence, the Court of Appeals found no error in the sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 11-5055

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    DONNIE CHARLES BERGERON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston.
    Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
    District Judge. (2:08-cr-00911-PMD-1)

    Submitted:

    March 1, 2012

    Decided:

    March 12, 2012

    Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,


    South Carolina, for Appellant.
    Sean Kittrell, Assistant United
    States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Donnie Charles Bergeron appeals the two-year sentence
    and

    one-year

    supervised

    release

    term

    revocation of his supervised release.

    imposed

    following

    the

    Counsel for Bergeron has

    filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738


    (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal,
    but questioning whether the district court imposed a plainly
    unreasonable sentence.

    Although informed of his right to file a

    pro se supplemental brief, Bergeron has not done so.


    In
    supervised

    reviewing
    release,

    this

    sentence
    court

    imposed
    takes

    upon

    We affirm.

    revocation

    more

    of

    deferential

    appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of


    discretion

    than

    sentences.

    reasonableness

    United

    States v.

    review

    Moulden,

    for
    478

    [G]uidelines

    F.3d

    652,

    656

    (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433,
    439 (4th Cir. 2006)).
    revocation

    of

    unreasonable.
    Cir.

    2010).

    We will affirm a sentence imposed after

    supervised

    release

    if

    it

    is

    not

    United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th


    The

    first

    step

    in

    this

    review

    requires

    determination of whether the sentence is unreasonable.


    461

    F.3d

    at

    substantively

    plainly

    438.

    Only

    unreasonable

    if

    the

    does

    sentence
    the

    is

    inquiry

    Crudup,

    procedurally
    proceed

    to

    or
    the

    second step of the analysis to determine whether the sentence is


    plainly unreasonable.

    Id. at 438-39.
    2

    supervised

    release

    revocation

    sentence

    is

    procedurally reasonable if the district court considered Chapter


    Sevens

    advisory

    3553(a)

    (2006)

    revocation.
    438-40.

    policy

    statement

    factors

    range

    applicable

    and

    to

    the

    18

    supervised

    U.S.C.
    release

    See 18 U.S.C. 3583(e) (2006); Crudup, 461 F.3d at

    A court need not be as detailed or specific when

    imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a


    post-conviction sentence, but it still must provide a statement
    of reasons for the sentence imposed.
    (internal quotation marks omitted).
    reasonable

    if

    the

    district

    court

    Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547


    A sentence is substantively

    stated

    proper

    basis

    for

    concluding the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up


    to the statutory maximum.

    Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.

    Upon review of the record, we agree with counsels


    assessment

    that

    Bergerons

    substantively reasonable.

    sentence

    is

    procedurally

    and

    At the final sentencing hearing, the

    district court reasonably found that the sentence was necessary


    in

    light

    adequate
    Because

    of

    Bergerons

    deterrence,
    the

    district

    criminal

    and

    the

    court

    history,

    need

    to

    articulated

    the

    need

    protect
    a

    to

    the

    proper

    afford
    public.

    basis

    for

    imposing the statutory maximum sentence, there is no substantive


    error.

    Because

    Bergerons

    sentence

    is

    procedurally

    substantively reasonable, it is not plainly unreasonable.

    and

    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record


    and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
    we affirm the district courts judgment.
    that

    counsel

    petition
    review.

    the

    Accordingly,

    This court requires

    inform

    Bergeron,

    in

    writing,

    of

    Supreme

    Court

    the

    United

    States

    of

    the

    right

    for

    to

    further

    If Bergeron requests that a petition be filed, but

    counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then


    counsel

    may

    move

    representation.

    this

    court

    for

    leave

    to

    withdraw

    from

    Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof

    was served on Bergeron.

    We dispense with oral argument because

    the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the


    materials

    before

    the

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like