Court Opinion

ID: 9918409
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-12 21:00:37.617362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:00:23.003595
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4226      Doc: 27         Filed: 01/11/2024    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-4226

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        AARON MARKEITH GERALD,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (4:21-cr-00033-AWA-1)

        Submitted: December 21, 2023                                      Decided: January 11, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, HARRIS, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Dennis E. Jones, DENNIS E. JONES, PLC, Abingdon, Virginia, for
        Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Peter G. Osyf,
        Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
        Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4226      Doc: 27         Filed: 01/11/2024     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Aaron Markeith Gerald appeals the district court’s order imposing a 36-month

        sentence upon revocation of Gerald’s term of supervised release. On appeal, Gerald argues

        that the sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the district court

        failed to adequately address Gerald’s mitigation arguments and imposed a term greater

        than necessary to achieve the applicable sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

        Finding no error, we affirm.

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

        supervised release. We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory

        maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Patterson, 957 F.3d 426, 436

        (4th Cir. 2020). Before deciding “whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable,

        [we] must first determine whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively

        unreasonable,” id., evaluating “the same procedural and substantive considerations that

        guide [this court’s] 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). “Only if a sentence is either procedurally or

        substantively unreasonable is a determination then made as to whether the sentence is

        plainly unreasonable—that is, whether the unreasonableness is clear or obvious.”

        Patterson, 957 F.3d at 437 (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

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4226       Doc: 27         Filed: 01/11/2024      Pg: 3 of 4

        States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2017) (footnote omitted); see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)

        (listing § 3553(a) factors relevant to revocation sentences). Although the sentencing court

        “need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be

        when imposing a post-conviction sentence,” “it still must provide a statement of reasons

        for the sentence imposed.” Slappy, 872 F.3d at 208 (internal quotation marks omitted).

        Indeed, a revocation sentence “need not always be accompanied by a fulsome explanation

        for [the court’s] acceptance or rejection of the parties’ arguments in favor of a particular

        sentence because, in many circumstances, a court’s acknowledgment of its consideration

        of the arguments will suffice.” Patterson, 957 F.3d at 438.

               “[A] revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the court sufficiently states

        a proper basis for its conclusion that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed.”

        Slappy, 872 F.3d at 207 (cleaned up). Where, as here, a court imposes a sentence above

        the policy statement range, the court must explain why that sentence “better serves the

        relevant sentencing [factors].” Id. at 209 (internal quotation marks omitted). “[A] major

        departure from the Guidelines should be supported by a more significant justification than

        a minor one.” United States v. Gibbs, 897 F.3d 199, 204 (4th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up).

               We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court committed no error

        when it imposed Gerald’s sentence. During the revocation hearing, the court listened to

        the parties’ arguments and allowed Gerald to allocute before imposing the sentence. The

        court thoroughly responded to each party’s arguments and explained why an upward

        variance from the Guidelines policy statement range was warranted in light of the relevant

        sentencing factors. The court also considered Gerald’s mitigating arguments, but found

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4226      Doc: 27         Filed: 01/11/2024      Pg: 4 of 4

        that they did not support a shorter sentence. Finally, based on the factors identified by the

        court, we conclude that Gerald’s sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v.

        Coston, 964 F.3d 289, 298 (4th Cir. 2020) (noting that “[g]iven the district court’s care in

        explaining [defendant’s] sentence, and especially considering that court’s historic inability

        to prevent [defendant] from repeatedly violating supervised release conditions,” the

        sentence was not unreasonable.).

               Accordingly, we affirm the revocation 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