Court Opinion

ID: 9364986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 21:00:21.140736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:41.875446
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4293      Doc: 19         Filed: 01/19/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4293

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        SHANI GWYNN LATHAM,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:19-cr-00409-WO-2)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 19, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Mark A. Jones, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. Craig Matthew Principe, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4293      Doc: 19         Filed: 01/19/2023    Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

              Shani Gwynn Latham appeals the district court’s judgment revoking her supervised

        release and sentencing her to one year and one day of imprisonment. Counsel has filed a

        brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no

        meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court properly

        concluded that Latham violated the conditions of supervised release and whether Latham’s

        sentence is unreasonable. The Government has declined to file a brief. Although notified

        of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Latham has not done so. We affirm.

              To revoke supervised release, the district court need only find a violation of a

        supervised release condition by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3);

        United States v. Dennison, 925 F.3d 185, 191 (4th Cir. 2019). We “review[] a district

        court’s decision to revoke a defendant’s supervised release for abuse of discretion,” its

        underlying factual findings for clear error, and unpreserved challenges for plain error.

        Dennison, 925 F.3d at 190. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court

        did not abuse its discretion in revoking Latham’s supervised release.

              “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). “When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly

        unreasonable, we must first determine whether it is unreasonable at all.” United States v.

        Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010). “A revocation sentence is procedurally

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4293       Doc: 19          Filed: 01/19/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        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.” Slappy, 872 F.3d at 207 (footnote omitted); see 18 U.S.C.

        § 3583(e). A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the court states a proper

        basis for concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the

        statutory maximum. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 440 (4th Cir. 2006). “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.” Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks omitted). Only

        if a sentence is either procedurally or substantively unreasonable is a determination then

        made as to whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. United States v. Moulden, 478

        F.3d 652, 656-57 (4th Cir. 2007).

               We conclude that Latham’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable.

        The district court imposed a within-policy-statement-range sentence, considered the

        relevant statutory factors, and gave sufficiently detailed reasons for its decision.

        Specifically, the court emphasized that, despite having resources available and being

        pregnant, Latham continued to possess and use drugs.

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

        revocation judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Latham, in writing, of the

        right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Latham

        requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,

                                                       3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4293         Doc: 19    Filed: 01/19/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s

        motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Latham.

              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