Court Opinion

ID: 9831315
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:00:33.596181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:21.441996
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4068      Doc: 22         Filed: 08/31/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-4068

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        DAVID LAMAR ANDREWS,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (4:12-cr-00024-RAJ-DEM-
        1)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                        Decided: August 31, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, Appellate
        Attorney, Wilfredo Bonilla, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE
        FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber,
        United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Dee M. Sterling, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia;
        Anthony L. Pappas, Second Year Law Student, WILLIAM & MARY LAW SCHOOL,
        Williamsburg, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4068      Doc: 22         Filed: 08/31/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               David Lamar Andrews appeals the 28-month sentence imposed following the

        revocation of his supervised release. On appeal, he argues that the sentence is plainly

        procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately

        explain the sentence and imposed a term greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing

        goals articulated 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). To determine whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we

        first determine whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable,

        evaluating “the same procedural and substantive considerations that guide our 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).

              “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

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4068      Doc: 22          Filed: 08/31/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        should receive the sentence imposed.” Coston, 964 F.3d at 297 (internal quotation marks

        omitted).

               Contrary to Andrews’ arguments on appeal, the record reflects that the district court

        adequately explained the sentence and stated an appropriate basis for the conclusion that

        Andrews should receive the sentence it imposed. The court considered Andrews’ mental

        health issues and the policy statement range of 8 to 14 months’ imprisonment, but it

        ultimately found that the maximum available sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment was

        warranted given Andrews’ history and characteristics. Specifically, the court explained

        that, despite a substantial reduction to his original sentence and two prior releases on

        supervision—both of which were revoked shortly after their commencement—Andrews

        refused to follow the probation officer’s instructions, accept responsibility for his actions,

        or take advantage of the mental health treatment opportunities presented to him. Therefore,

        we conclude that Andrews’ sentence is not plainly 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

                                                      3