Court Opinion

ID: 9412209
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 21:01:32.793201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:31.826694
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4743      Doc: 22         Filed: 07/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 5

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4743

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        UWEM NSE OBONG, a/k/a Uwemedimo Bong, a/k/a Ernest Obong,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:19-cr-00249-LMB-1)

        Submitted: July 25, 2023                                          Decided: July 27, 2023

        Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Cadence A.
        Mertz, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC
        DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States
        Attorney, Aidan Taft Grano-Mickelsen, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF
        THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4743      Doc: 22         Filed: 07/27/2023    Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Uwem Nse Obong appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised

        release and sentencing him to 12 months’ imprisonment followed by two years of

        supervised release. On appeal, Obong argues that the district court imposed a plainly

        unreasonable sentence by impermissibly basing his term of imprisonment on his need for

        mental health treatment. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

               “A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of

        supervised release.” United States v. Patterson, 957 F.3d 426, 436 (4th Cir. 2020). “We

        will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly

        unreasonable.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal

        quotation marks omitted).       To determine whether a revocation sentence is plainly

        unreasonable, we first determine whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively

        unreasonable, evaluating “the same procedural and substantive considerations that guide

        our review of original sentences” but taking “a more deferential appellate posture than we

        do when reviewing original sentences.” United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373

        (4th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up).

               “A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court adequately

        explains the chosen sentence after considering the Sentencing Guidelines’ nonbinding

        Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United

        States v. Coston, 964 F.3d 289, 297 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted);

        see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (listing sentencing factors applicable to revocation proceedings).

        “A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if, in light of the totality of the

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4743       Doc: 22         Filed: 07/27/2023      Pg: 3 of 5

        circumstances, the court states an appropriate basis for concluding that the defendant

        should receive the sentence imposed.” Coston, 964 F.3d at 297 (internal quotation marks

        omitted).

               Because Obong did not specifically object in the district court to the court’s

        consideration of his rehabilitative needs in imposing his sentence or determining its length,

        our review of the issue is for plain error. ∗ See United States v. Lemon, 777 F.3d 170, 172

        (4th Cir. 2015) (reviewing unpreserved Tapia challenge to revocation sentence for plain

        error because “the issue was not raised as the revocation hearing”); see also United States v.

        Fowler, 948 F.3d 663, 669 (4th Cir. 2020) (“When a defendant argues for the first time on

        appeal that a district judge erred by considering an improper factor during sentencing, we

        review for plain error.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). To demonstrate plain error, a

        defendant must show “(1) that the district court erred; (2) that the error was plain; and

        (3) that the error affected his substantial rights, meaning that it affected the outcome of the

        district court proceedings.” United States v. Bennett, 698 F.3d 194, 200 (4th Cir. 2012)

        (cleaned up). Even where a defendant satisfies these requirements, we will exercise our

        discretion to correct the error only if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public

        reputation of judicial proceedings.” Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189, 194

        (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               ∗
                Even applying the more generous plainly unreasonable standard of review, our
        determination of whether there was sentencing error would remain the same.

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4743      Doc: 22         Filed: 07/27/2023     Pg: 4 of 5

               Turning to the substance of Obong’s challenge to his revocation sentence, 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(a) “precludes sentencing courts from imposing or lengthening a prison term to

        promote an offender’s rehabilitation.” Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 332 (2011);

        see Bennett, 698 F.3d at 198-99 (holding that Tapia applies to sentencing upon revocation

        of supervised release). However, a district court is not prohibited from considering a

        defendant’s rehabilitative needs or making treatment recommendations during sentencing,

        so long as those needs do not influence the fact or extend the length of the term of

        imprisonment. See Tapia, 564 U.S. at 334; United States v. Alston, 722 F.3d 603, 608-09

        (4th Cir. 2013); Bennett, 698 F.3d at 198-99. For a Tapia claim to succeed, the sentencing

        court’s reference to the defendant’s rehabilitative needs must be “causally related” to the

        court’s sentencing determination. See Lemon, 777 F.3d at 174 (emphasis omitted); see also

        id. (observing that it is “unlikely that a court has committed Tapia error unless it has

        considered rehabilitation for the specific purpose of imposing or lengthening a prison

        sentence”).

               We conclude that Obong falls short of establishing plain error under Tapia. At

        bottom, “Tapia stands for the proposition that a court cannot impose or lengthen a sentence

        to ensure that a defendant can complete a training or rehabilitation program.” Alston, 722

        F.3d at 609. Here, the district court based its decision to impose a prison term not on

        rehabilitative considerations, but because of the danger Obong posed to the community.

        Nor did the court tie the prison term to any particular treatment program or indicate an

        expectation that Obong would complete a treatment program during his incarceration.

                                                    4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4743      Doc: 22        Filed: 07/27/2023     Pg: 5 of 5

              Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral

        argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

        before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                     AFFIRMED

                                                    5