US v. Eugene Edmonds, Jr., No. 09-5212 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-5212 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EUGENE EDMONDS, JR., a/k/a Boo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:04-cr-00339-RLW-1) Submitted: November 18, 2010 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. AGEE, Circuit Decided: Judges, and November 24, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Elizabeth S. Wilson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, Research and Writing Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Olivia N. Hawkins, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eugene month sentence supervised sentence Edmonds, release. appeals pursuant imposed Jr., to appeal, procedurally is On plainly from the the twenty-four revocation Edmonds of his that his because the asserts unreasonable district court failed to adequately explain its reasoning for the sentence imposed. A release sentence should statutory We affirm. be maximum imposed after affirmed and is if it not revocation is within plainly of supervised the applicable unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). making this determination, sentence is unreasonable. we first consider Id. at 438. whether In the This initial inquiry takes a more deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than reasonableness review for guideline sentences. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). generally the procedural In making our review, we follow and substantive considerations that [are] employ[ed] in [the] review of original sentences, . . . with some unique necessary nature of modifications supervised to release take into revocation account the sentences. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-39. A procedurally sentence imposed reasonable if upon the 2 revocation district court of release considered is the Chapter Seven policy statements and the 18 U.S.C. (2006) factors that it is permitted to consider. § 3583(e); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-40. revocation of release is § 3553(a) See 18 U.S.C. A sentence imposed upon substantively reasonable if the district court stated a proper basis for concluding that the defendant should receive statutory maximum. the sentence sentence is is sentence imposed, Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. not found the unreasonable. procedurally Id. or up to the We will affirm if at 439. substantively Only if a unreasonable will we decide whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. Id. When imposing sentence, the district court must provide individualized reasoning. See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). The Carter rationale applies to a revocation hearings; however, court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be sentence. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). Because Edmonds when did imposing not a request post-conviction a sentence imposed, review is for plain error. different from the one See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 580 (4th Cir. 2010). We conclude that Edmonds failed to make the requisite showings. potential The but district lacked court acknowledged discipline, 3 and that that he had Edmonds been had given other opportunities to improve his life. The court explicitly noted the Guidelines range (eight to fourteen months) and the statutory maximum when arriving at a sentence. court recommended that Edmonds receive In addition, the vocational training, educational opportunities, and drug rehabilitation. Because Edmonds sentence is reviewed for plain error, he must also show that there is a reasonable probability that the claimed irregularity in sentencing affected his substantial rights and that any error affected the fairness and integrity of the judicial system. Edmonds assertion of error illustrates essentially a disagreement with the district court s conclusions that his behavior constituted continuing serious breaches of his release conditions. rights were egregious Edmonds cannot show that his substantial affected that it or that the sentencing called into question the error fairness was so of the sentencing system. Accordingly, we affirm Edmonds sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
