Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 32 views

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Eugene Edmonds appealed his 24-month sentence imposed after his supervised release was revoked. The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence. The court found that the district court considered the proper factors, policy statements, and statutory provisions. The district court also provided individualized reasoning for the sentence, noting Edmonds' potential but lack of discipline. As the sentence was within the guidelines and statutory maximum, and Edmonds did not show his substantial rights were affected or the fairness of the process called into question, the appeals court affirmed the sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    32 views4 pages
    Eugene Edmonds appealed his 24-month sentence imposed after his supervised release was revoked. The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence. The court found that the district court considered the proper factors, policy statements, and statutory provisions. The district court also provided individualized reasoning for the sentence, noting Edmonds' potential but lack of discipline. As the sentence was within the guidelines and statutory maximum, and Edmonds did not show his substantial rights were affected or the fairness of the process called into question, the appeals court affirmed the sentence.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-11-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-5212

    Original Title

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

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Eugene Edmonds appealed his 24-month sentence imposed after his supervised release was revoked. The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence. The court found that the district court considered the proper factors, policy statements, and statutory provisions. The district court also provided individualized reasoning for the sentence, noting Edmonds' potential but lack of discipline. As the sentence was within the guidelines and statutory maximum, and Edmonds did not show his substantial rights were affected or the fairness of the process called into question, the appeals court affirmed the sentence.

    Copyright:

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

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Eugene Edmonds appealed his 24-month sentence imposed after his supervised release was revoked. The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence. The court found that the district court considered the proper factors, policy statements, and statutory provisions. The district court also provided individualized reasoning for the sentence, noting Edmonds' potential but lack of discipline. As the sentence was within the guidelines and statutory maximum, and Edmonds did not show his substantial rights were affected or the fairness of the process called into question, the appeals court affirmed the sentence.

    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. 09-5212

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    EUGENE EDMONDS, JR., a/k/a Boo,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
    District Judge. (3:04-cr-00339-RLW-1)

    Submitted:

    November 18, 2010

    Before SHEDD and


    Circuit Judge.

    AGEE,

    Circuit

    Decided:

    Judges,

    and

    November 24, 2010

    HAMILTON,

    Senior

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Elizabeth S.


    Wilson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant,
    Research
    and
    Writing
    Attorney,
    Richmond,
    Virginia,
    for
    Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Olivia N.
    Hawkins, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Eugene
    month

    sentence

    supervised
    sentence

    Edmonds,
    imposed

    release.
    is

    Jr.,

    appeals

    pursuant

    to

    On

    appeal,

    procedurally

    plainly

    from

    the

    the

    twenty-four

    revocation

    Edmonds

    of

    his

    that

    his

    because

    the

    asserts

    unreasonable

    district court failed to adequately explain its reasoning for


    the sentence imposed.
    A
    release

    sentence

    should

    statutory

    We affirm.

    be

    maximum

    imposed

    after

    affirmed
    and

    is

    if

    it

    not

    revocation
    is

    within

    plainly

    of

    supervised

    the

    applicable

    unreasonable.

    United

    States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006).


    making

    this

    determination,

    sentence is unreasonable.

    we

    first

    consider

    Id. at 438.

    whether

    In
    the

    This initial inquiry

    takes a more deferential appellate posture concerning issues of


    fact and the exercise of discretion than reasonableness review
    for guideline sentences.

    United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d

    652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007).


    generally

    the

    procedural

    In making our review, we follow


    and

    substantive

    considerations

    that

    [are] employ[ed] in [the] review of original sentences, . . .


    with

    some

    unique

    necessary

    nature

    of

    modifications

    supervised

    to

    release

    take

    into

    revocation

    account

    the

    sentences.

    Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-39.


    A
    procedurally

    sentence

    imposed

    reasonable

    if

    upon

    the
    2

    revocation

    district

    court

    of

    release

    considered

    is
    the

    Chapter

    Seven

    policy

    statements

    and

    the

    18

    U.S.C.

    (2006) factors that it is permitted to consider.


    3583(e); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-40.
    revocation

    of

    release

    is

    3553(a)

    See 18 U.S.C.

    A sentence imposed upon

    substantively

    reasonable

    if

    the

    district court stated a proper basis for concluding that the


    defendant

    should

    receive

    statutory maximum.
    the

    sentence

    sentence

    is

    is

    sentence

    imposed,

    Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.

    not

    found

    the

    unreasonable.

    procedurally

    Id.

    or

    up

    to

    the

    We will affirm if

    at

    439.

    substantively

    Only

    if

    unreasonable

    will we decide whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable.


    Id.
    When

    imposing

    sentence,

    the

    provide individualized reasoning.

    district

    court

    must

    See United States v. Carter,

    564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).

    The Carter rationale applies

    to

    revocation

    hearings;

    however,

    court

    need

    not

    be

    as

    detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it


    must

    be

    sentence.

    United

    States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).

    Because

    Edmonds

    when

    did

    imposing

    not

    request

    post-conviction

    sentence

    imposed, review is for plain error.

    different

    from

    the

    one

    See United States v. Lynn,

    592 F.3d 572, 580 (4th Cir. 2010).


    We conclude that Edmonds failed to make the requisite
    showings.
    potential

    The
    but

    district

    lacked

    court

    acknowledged

    discipline,
    3

    and

    that

    that
    he

    had

    Edmonds
    been

    had

    given

    other opportunities to improve his life.

    The court explicitly

    noted the Guidelines range (eight to fourteen months) and the


    statutory maximum when arriving at a sentence.
    court

    recommended

    that

    Edmonds

    receive

    In addition, the

    vocational

    training,

    educational opportunities, and drug rehabilitation.


    Because Edmonds sentence is reviewed for plain error,
    he must also show that there is a reasonable probability that
    the claimed irregularity in sentencing affected his substantial
    rights and that any error affected the fairness and integrity of
    the judicial system.

    Edmonds assertion of error illustrates

    essentially a disagreement with the district courts conclusions


    that his behavior constituted continuing serious breaches of his
    release conditions.
    rights

    were

    egregious

    Edmonds cannot show that his substantial

    affected

    that

    it

    or

    that

    the

    sentencing

    called

    into

    question

    the

    error

    fairness

    was
    of

    so
    the

    sentencing system.
    Accordingly, we affirm Edmonds sentence.

    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

    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