Court Opinion

ID: 9401132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-10 21:00:29.917116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:50.811724
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4010      Doc: 26         Filed: 06/09/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4010

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        SHERWIN LEE TANN, JR.,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Elizabeth City. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (2:19-cr-00025-FL-1)

        Submitted: May 4, 2023                                                Decided: June 9, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior
        Circuit Judge.

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Andrew DeSimone, Assistant
        Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh,
        North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A.
        Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, John L. Gibbons, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4010      Doc: 26         Filed: 06/09/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Sherwin Lee Tann, Jr., appeals the 24-month sentence imposed by the district court

        after it revoked his supervised release. We agree with Tann’s contention that the district

        court failed to adequately address his nonfrivolous arguments for a lesser sentence.

        Accordingly, we vacate his sentence and remand.

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

        supervised release.” United States v. Patterson, 957 F.3d 426, 436 (4th Cir. 2020). We

        “will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly

        unreasonable.”    Id.   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 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) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). If a

        revocation sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable, we will not proceed

        to consider “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 Chapter Seven policy statement range

        and the applicable [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) sentencing factors.” Id. at 436; see 18 U.S.C.

        § 3583(e) (listing applicable factors). “[A]lthough the court need not be as detailed or

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4010       Doc: 26         Filed: 06/09/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        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.”

        United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 208 (4th Cir. 2017) (alteration and internal quotation

        marks omitted). If the court imposes a sentence within the policy statement range, “less

        explanation” is typically required. Patterson, 957 F.3d at 439 (internal quotation marks

        omitted).

               “[A] district court, when imposing a revocation sentence, 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 [we] can meaningfully

        consider the procedural reasonableness of the revocation sentence imposed.” Slappy, 872

        F.3d at 208. “[W]here a court entirely fails to mention a party’s nonfrivolous arguments

        in favor of a particular sentence, or where the court fails to provide at least some reason

        why those arguments are unpersuasive, even the relaxed requirements for revocation

        sentences are not satisfied.” Id. at 209.

               The district court failed to explicitly address Tann’s two main arguments in

        mitigation—his employment history while on supervision and his desire to improve his

        relationship with his family. While we may be able to infer that the district court addressed

        this latter argument by recounting Tann’s offense conduct—assaulting the mother of his

        children—we cannot do so regarding the employment argument, as we “may not guess at

        the district court’s rationale, searching the record for statements by the Government or

        defense counsel or for any other clues that might explain a sentence.” United States v.

        Perez-Paz, 3 F.4th 120, 128 (4th Cir. 2021). The district court’s failure to address these

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4010      Doc: 26         Filed: 06/09/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        arguments is compounded by the court’s decision to vary upward and impose the statutory

        maximum sentence. See Slappy, 872 F.3d at 209. And under Slappy, we conclude that the

        sentence is plainly unreasonable. See id. at 210. We also reject the Government’s

        argument that the error here was harmless because “nothing in the record explicitly

        indicates that [the district court] would have imposed the same sentence regardless of

        whether it considered any specific mitigation factors.” Patterson, 957 F.3d at 440.

               Accordingly, we vacate Tann’s sentence and remand for further proceedings. * We

        deny Tann’s motion to expedite as moot. 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.

                                                                   VACATED AND REMANDED

               *
                 Because we conclude that the sentence is procedurally unreasonable given the
        court’s failure to address Tann’s nonfrivolous arguments, we decline to address Tann’s
        additional arguments that the court committed further procedural error by referring to his
        arrest record and dismissed charges and in considering the amount of credit Tann would
        receive for his pretrial detention.

                                                    4