Court Opinion

ID: 999134
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:21:00.51063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:14.722214
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 98-4921

JOHNNY BECK,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge.
(CR-95-140)

Submitted: June 8, 1999

Decided: June 28, 1999

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges,
and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William Arthur Webb, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Scott L. Wilkinson, Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Johnny Beck appeals from the two-year sentence he received after
the district court revoked his term of supervised release. He claims
that the district court failed to explicitly consider the factors set forth
in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 1985 & Supp. 1999), and that the dis-
trict court failed to articulate a reason for imposing a sentence greater
than the advisory range set forth in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 7B1.4 (1997). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Prior to the revocation hearing at issue in this appeal, Beck had
been before the district court several times on numerous violations of
the terms of his probation and his supervised release. At the revoca-
tion hearing, the district judge noted that he was"tired" of seeing
Beck in his courtroom. After the district judge stated that he had con-
sidered the policy statements of Chapter Seven of the Sentencing
Guidelines, he imposed a sentence of twenty-four months.

Because Beck did not object to the sentence or the district court's
brief recitation of its reasoning, we review his sentence for plain error
and find none. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-37
(1993). We note that a "court need not engage in ritualistic incanta-
tion in order to establish its consideration of a legal issue." United
States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir. 1995). In this case, the
defense argued in favor of imposing a sentence within the range
advised by USSG § 7B1.4. The Government, on the other hand,
argued that the court should sentence Beck above the range. After
considering the competing arguments pertaining to the factors enu-
merated in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) and after considering Beck's failure
to conform his actions to the requirements of the sentencing court and
the U.S. Probation Office, the district court imposed the full sentence
authorized by statute. It is sufficient that the court ruled on issues
fairly presented before it and the court's analysis of the § 3553(a) fac-

                     2
tors was implicit. See Davis, 53 F.3d at 642; see also United States
v. McClanahan, 136 F.3d 1146, 1151 (7th Cir. 1998).

We further find that even if the district court's failure to fully artic-
ulate the factors that informed its exercise of discretion constituted
error, reversal would be inappropriate. Because of Beck's inability to
follow the conditions of his supervised release and because the district
court imposed a sentence within the statutorily authorized period, any
error did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputa-
tion of the judicial proceedings. We therefore affirm Beck's sentence.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3