Court Opinion

ID: 9929150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-01 21:00:44.222475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:05:55.528014
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4643      Doc: 17         Filed: 01/31/2024    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4643

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        MICHAEL D. WHITAKER,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Spartanburg. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (7:15-cr-00533-BHH-5)

        Submitted: January 26, 2024                                       Decided: January 31, 2024

        Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Judea Shechinah Davis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE
        FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Adair F.
        Boroughs, United States Attorney, William J. Watkins, Jr., Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4643      Doc: 17         Filed: 01/31/2024      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Michael D. Whitaker appeals the 60-month sentence imposed upon revocation of

        his supervised release. The sentence was the result of an upward variance and constituted

        the statutory maximum sentence. On appeal, Whitaker argues that the revocation sentence

        is plainly unreasonable because the district court failed to consider each of his mitigating

        arguments and did not adequately explain the chosen sentence. We affirm.

               “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). Thus, we

        will “affirm a revocation sentence so long as it is within the prescribed statutory range and

        is not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Coston, 964 F.3d 289, 296 (4th Cir. 2020)

        (internal quotation marks omitted). When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is

        plainly unreasonable, we first “determine whether the sentence is unreasonable at all.” Id.

        (internal quotation marks omitted). “In making this determination, we follow generally the

        procedural and substantive considerations that we employ in our review of original

        sentences, with some necessary modifications to take into account the unique nature of

        supervised release revocation sentences.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th

        Cir. 2017) (ellipses 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,” Coston, 964 F.3d at 297 (internal quotation

        marks omitted), and if the explanation indicates “that the court considered any potentially

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4643      Doc: 17         Filed: 01/31/2024     Pg: 3 of 4

        meritorious arguments raised by the parties,” United States v. Patterson, 957 F.3d 426,

        436-37 (4th Cir. 2020) (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). Accordingly, the court “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 [c]ourt can

        meaningfully consider the procedural reasonableness of the revocation sentence.” Slappy,

        872 F.3d at 208. A procedural sentencing error is harmless, however, if the government

        proves “that the error did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the

        result.” United States v. Ross, 912 F.3d 740, 745 (4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks

        omitted).

               Here, the district court adequately explained its decision to impose an upward

        variant sentence. And, while the court did not explicitly address several of Whitaker’s

        arguments in mitigation, we conclude that the Government has satisfied its burden of

        showing that any error is harmless. Whitaker’s mitigation arguments based on his full-time

        employment before his arrest, negative drug tests after testing positive for drugs, and

        transportation difficulties attending drug and sex offender treatment were not particularly

        compelling in light of the court’s rationale for imposing its chosen sentence. We are thus

        persuaded that, in this case, the court’s failure to expressly acknowledge some of

                                                    3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4643      Doc: 17         Filed: 01/31/2024      Pg: 4 of 4

        Whitaker’s mitigation arguments is harmless.         Our review otherwise confirms that

        Whitaker’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable.

               We therefore 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

                                                     4