Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 21 views

    United States v. Shipman, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Edward Venez Shipman appealed the 24-month sentence imposed on him for violating the terms of his supervised release. 2) The district court considered the advisory Chapter 7 guideline range of 7-13 months but determined this did not adequately account for Shipman's repeated refusal to follow the rules of his supervised release based on testimony from his probation officer. 3) The appeals court affirmed the district court's sentence, finding it met procedural and substantive standards for reasonableness given the district court's expressed consideration of the advisory guidelines and §3553(a) factors.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Shipman, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    21 views4 pages
    1) Edward Venez Shipman appealed the 24-month sentence imposed on him for violating the terms of his supervised release. 2) The district court considered the advisory Chapter 7 guideline range of 7-13 months but determined this did not adequately account for Shipman's repeated refusal to follow the rules of his supervised release based on testimony from his probation officer. 3) The appeals court affirmed the district court's sentence, finding it met procedural and substantive standards for reasonableness given the district court's expressed consideration of the advisory guidelines and §3553(a) factors.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-11-12 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-4337

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Edward Venez Shipman appealed the 24-month sentence imposed on him for violating the terms of his supervised release. 2) The district court considered the advisory Chapter 7 guideline range of 7-13 months but determined this did not adequately account for Shipman's repeated refusal to follow the rules of his supervised release based on testimony from his probation officer. 3) The appeals court affirmed the district court's sentence, finding it met procedural and substantive standards for reasonableness given the district court's expressed consideration of the advisory guidelines and §3553(a) factors.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Shipman, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Edward Venez Shipman appealed the 24-month sentence imposed on him for violating the terms of his supervised release. 2) The district court considered the advisory Chapter 7 guideline range of 7-13 months but determined this did not adequately account for Shipman's repeated refusal to follow the rules of his supervised release based on testimony from his probation officer. 3) The appeals court affirmed the district court's sentence, finding it met procedural and substantive standards for reasonableness given the district court's expressed consideration of the advisory guidelines and §3553(a) factors.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-4337

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    EDWARD VENEZ SHIPMAN,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (7:03-cr-00044-F-1)

    Submitted:

    October 29, 2010

    Decided:

    November 12, 2010

    Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,


    Assistant Federal Public Defender, James E. Todd, Jr., Research
    and Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
    George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. MayParker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys,
    Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Edward

    Venez

    Shipman

    appeals

    the

    twenty-four-month

    sentence he received upon revocation of his supervised release.


    He

    contends

    that

    the

    district

    court

    imposed

    plainly

    unreasonable sentence, failing to address mitigating factors and


    to provide sufficient reason for a sentence above the 7-13-month
    revocation range set out in Chapter 7 of the U.S. Sentencing
    Guidelines Manual (2009).

    We affirm.

    The district court has broad discretion to impose a


    sentence upon revoking a defendants supervised release.
    States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).

    United
    We will

    affirm unless the sentence is plainly unreasonable in light of


    the

    applicable

    18

    U.S.C.

    3553(a)

    (2006)

    factors.

    United

    States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006).


    We

    must

    unreasonable.

    first

    decide

    Id. at 438.

    whether

    the

    sentence

    is

    In doing so, we follow generally

    the procedural and substantive considerations used in reviewing


    original sentences.
    if

    the

    district

    contained

    in

    Id..

    court

    Chapter

    A sentence is procedurally reasonable


    has
    of

    considered
    the

    the

    guidelines

    policy
    and

    the

    statements
    applicable

    3553(a) factors, id. at 440, and has adequately explained the


    sentence chosen, though it need not explain the sentence in as
    much detail as when imposing the original sentence.
    595 F.3d at 547.

    Thompson,

    A sentence is substantively reasonable if the


    2

    district court states a proper basis for its imposition of a


    sentence up to the statutory maximum.

    Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.

    If,

    are

    after

    considering

    the

    above,

    we

    convinced

    Shipmans

    this

    sentence

    unreasonable.

    courts
    is

    deferential

    not

    the

    Id. at 439.

    sentence is not unreasonable, we will affirm.


    Under

    that

    standard

    procedurally

    or

    of

    review,

    substantively

    Shipman argues that the district court failed to

    consider his inability to secure a stable residence.

    He also

    claims that the court failed to give sufficient reasons for the
    extent

    of

    its

    variance

    above

    the

    guideline

    range,

    and

    thus

    failed to follow the mandate in 3553(a) to impose a sentence


    sufficient

    but

    not

    statutes

    sentencing

    probation

    officers

    greater

    than

    purposes.
    testimony

    necessary
    The

    about

    court

    his

    to

    fulfill

    the

    heard

    the

    also

    effort

    to

    supervise

    Shipman for over a year and Shipmans lack of cooperation, as


    evidenced

    by

    his

    repeated

    marijuana

    use,

    additional

    criminal

    conduct, failure to stay in contact with the probation officer,


    and unwillingness to return to a residential reentry center to
    remedy

    his

    Shipmans

    homeless

    statement

    state.
    in

    which

    Last,
    he

    the

    district

    asserted

    that

    court

    the

    heard

    probation

    officer had failed to help him despite his requests for help.
    The district court expressly considered the advisory
    Chapter 7 guideline range of 7-13 months.

    However, the court

    determined that the guideline range did not adequately account


    3

    for Shipmans pattern of refusing to follow the rules, thus


    impliedly accepting the probation officers version of events
    during his period of supervised release.
    should

    sanction

    primarily

    the

    A revocation sentence

    defendants

    USSG ch. 7, pt. A, intro. cmt. 3(b).

    breach

    of

    trust.

    We conclude that Shipmans

    twenty-four-month sentence was not unreasonable.


    We
    district
    facts

    court.

    and

    materials

    therefore

    legal
    before

    We

    affirm

    dispense

    contentions
    the

    court

    the
    with

    sentence
    oral

    imposed

    argument

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    by

    the

    because

    the

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy