Court Opinion

ID: 9929508
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-02 21:00:40.253358+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:26:43.596909
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4487      Doc: 27         Filed: 02/01/2024     Pg: 1 of 8

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4482

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        RASUL GATFORD,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

                                               No. 22-4487

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        RASUL GATFORD,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:13-cr-00010-BO-2; 7:21-cr-00140-
        BO-1)

        Submitted: January 23, 2024                                    Decided: February 1, 2024
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4487      Doc: 27         Filed: 02/01/2024    Pg: 2 of 8

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        No. 22-4482, vacated and remanded; No. 22-4487, affirmed by unpublished per curiam
        opinion.

        ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Andrew DeSimone, Assistant
        Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh,
        North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A.
        Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Logan W. Liles, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4487      Doc: 27         Filed: 02/01/2024      Pg: 3 of 8

        PER CURIAM:

               In separate appeals, Appellant Rasul Gatford challenges a criminal judgment,

        Appeal No. 22-4487, and a revocation judgment, Appeal No. 22-4482. The appeals have

        been consolidated. For the reasons that follow, in Appeal No. 22-4482, we vacate

        Gatford’s 14-month revocation sentence and remand for resentencing; in Appeal No. 22-

        4487, we affirm the criminal judgment.

                                                     I.

               While serving a term of supervised release for previous drug and firearm offenses,

        Gatford was arrested on new drug and firearm charges. The probation officer filed a

        petition in the district court asking the court to revoke Gatford’s supervised release based

        on his new criminal conduct. Gatford subsequently was charged in federal court and pled

        guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possession with intent to distribute cocaine

        base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and possession of a firearm by a felon, in

        violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). 1

               The district court held a joint hearing on the revocation petition and the sentencing

        on the new charges where the court revoked Gatford’s term of supervised release,

        sentenced Gatford to 60 months’ imprisonment for the drug and firearm offenses, and

               1
                 Section 924(a)(2) was amended and no longer provides the penalty for § 922(g)
        convictions. The new penalty provision in 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(8) sets forth a statutory
        maximum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment for a § 922(g) offense. See Bipartisan Safer
        Communities Act, Pub. L. No. 117-159, § 12004(c), 136 Stat. 1313, 1329 (2022). The 15-
        year statutory maximum does not apply here, however, because Gatford committed his
        offense before the June 25, 2022, amendment of the statute.

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4487      Doc: 27         Filed: 02/01/2024       Pg: 4 of 8

        imposed a 14-month consecutive term of imprisonment for the revocation sentence,

        resulting in an aggregate sentence of 74 months. Gatford noticed two appeals for (1) the

        new criminal offenses and (2) the revocation sentence. 2

                                                    II.

               Gatford argues that his revocation sentence was procedurally unreasonable. He

        notes that the district court imposed a sentence different from the one he requested but

        failed to offer any explanation why it rejected his request and his arguments in support of

        it.

               During the joint sentencing/revocation hearing, the district court announced that

        Gatford’s Sentencing Guidelines range on his new convictions was “70 to 87 months on

        both counts” and that the policy statement range for the supervised release revocation

        sentence was 30 to 37 months. The court invited counsel to present arguments as to an

        appropriate sentence asking, “What’s the package?”

               Gatford’s counsel argued in favor of a 60-month downward variance sentence,

        contending that a below-Guidelines range sentence was “the appropriate result in this case

        as a package.” Gatford’s attorney presented several arguments in support of this sentence,

        emphasizing the small quantity of drugs involved in the offense, the sentencing disparity

               2
                 On appeal, Gatford has declined to challenge his convictions and 60-month
        sentence on the new charges, citing the appeal waiver in his written plea agreement. The
        Government has not sought to enforce the appeal waiver. Because Gatford’s opening brief
        does not challenge his convictions or sentence on the new criminal charges, Gatford has
        waived appellate review of the criminal judgment. See Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l LLC,
        856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017) (“A party waives an argument by failing to present it in
        its opening brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the criminal judgment.

                                                    4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4487       Doc: 27         Filed: 02/01/2024      Pg: 5 of 8

        between cocaine and cocaine base offenses, and the fact that there was no evidence that the

        firearm was used during any drug transaction. The Government argued in favor of a

        sentence above the 70- to 87-month Guidelines range on the new criminal charges,

        contending that a 96-month upward departure or variance sentence was appropriate.

               Without further discussion or explanation, the court announced Gatford’s sentence

        of 60 months on the new criminal charges, and “[o]n the revocation, I’ll impose a sentence

        of 14 months consecutive to the sentence on the new case.” On appeal, Gatford argues that

        the sentence imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release was procedurally

        unreasonable because the court failed to sufficiently explain the sentence and failed to

        address his arguments for a lesser sentence.

                                                       1.

               We first address the standard of review. “[I]f a party repeats on appeal a claim of

        procedural sentencing error . . . [that] it has made before the district court, we review for

        abuse of discretion” and will reverse unless we conclude “that the error was harmless.”

        United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010). For instance, if “an aggrieved

        party sufficiently alerts the district court of its responsibility to render an individualized

        explanation” by arguing “for a sentence different than the one ultimately imposed,” the

        party sufficiently “preserves its claim.” Id. at 578. However, we review unpreserved non-

        structural sentencing errors for plain error. Id. at 576-77.

               The Government contends that Gatford’s sentencing arguments addressed only the

        sentence for the new criminal charges and that he did not request a specific sentence on the

        revocation. It therefore asserts that Gatford’s sentencing challenge should be reviewed for

                                                       5
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4487      Doc: 27         Filed: 02/01/2024     Pg: 6 of 8

        plain error. Gatford argues that his argument in favor of a 60-month sentence was for an

        aggregate sentence for both the new criminal charges and the revocation and that he

        preserved his challenge to the reasonableness of the revocation sentence.

               While there is merit to both arguments, we discern from the record that it is more

        likely than not that the district court sought recommendations on the aggregate sentence

        for both the new charges and the revocation. Thus, we conclude that Gatford argued for a

        revocation sentence different from the sentence imposed and that he thereby preserved for

        appeal his claim of procedural sentencing error.

                                                    2.

               Gatford argues that his revocation sentence was procedurally unreasonable because

        the district court failed to adequately justify the sentence imposed. “A district court has

        broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” United

        States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). 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).           In

        determining whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we must first determine

        whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Id. Only if we find

        the sentence procedurally or substantively unreasonable, must we decide whether it is

        “plainly” so. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 657 (4th Cir. 2007) (stating that a

        plainly unreasonable sentence is one in which the error is clear and obvious). In making

        this determination, we are guided by “the same procedural and substantive considerations

        that guide our review of original sentences,” but we take “a more deferential appellate

                                                    6
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4487      Doc: 27         Filed: 02/01/2024      Pg: 7 of 8

        posture than we do when reviewing original sentences.” United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d

        370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).

               “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

        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).

               “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.” United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547

        (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). An explanation is adequate if it permits

        this court to determine “that the sentencing court considered the applicable sentencing

        factors with regard to the particular defendant before it and also considered any potentially

        meritorious arguments raised by the parties with regard to sentencing.” United States v.

        Gibbs, 897 F.3d 199, 204 (4th Cir. 2018) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted).

               Our review of the sentencing transcript demonstrates that the district court did not

        address Gatford’s arguments and provided no explanation for the sentence imposed on the

        revocation of Gatford’s supervised release. Accordingly, we conclude that the district

                                                     7
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4487      Doc: 27         Filed: 02/01/2024      Pg: 8 of 8

        court failed to “provide enough of an explanation to assure this Court that it considered the

        parties’ arguments and had some basis for choosing the imposed sentence.” Slappy, 872

        F.3d at 210.

               [A] district court, when imposing a revocation sentence, must address the
               parties’ nonfrivolous arguments in favor of a particular sentence, and if the
               court rejects those arguments, it must explain why in a detailed-enough
               manner that this Court can meaningfully consider the procedural
               reasonableness of the revocation sentence imposed. We continue to
               recognize that a court’s statement of reasons for imposing a revocation
               sentence need not be as specific as has been required for departing from a
               traditional guidelines range. But where a court entirely fails to mention a
               party’s nonfrivolous arguments in favor of a particular sentence, or where
               the court fails to provide at least some reason why those arguments are
               unpersuasive, even the relaxed requirements for revocation sentences are not
               satisfied.

        Id. at 208–09 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Because the district court

        offered no explanation of Gatford’s revocation sentence, that sentence is procedurally

        unreasonable.

                                                    III.

               For the foregoing reasons, in Appeal No. 22-4482, we vacate Gatford’s revocation

        sentence and remand for resentencing with instruction that the district court explain its

        basis for choosing whatever sentence it imposes. In Appeal No. 22-4487, we affirm the

        criminal 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.

                                                      No. 22-4482, VACATED AND REMANDED;
                                                                      No. 22-4487, AFFIRMED

                                                     8