US v. Unula Abebe, No. 09-5223 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-5223 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. UNULA BOO SHAWN ABEBE, a/k/a Sean Tyquan Adams, a/k/a Tryon T. Jakes, a/k/a Shaun Adeve, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:09-cr-00251-MJP-1) Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: July 5, 2011 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew MacKenzie, BARRETT MACKENZIE, LLC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Jeffrey Mikell Johnson, Robert F. Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Unula sentences Boo imposed Shawn by the Abebe appeals district the and court two sixty-month ordered to run consecutively following his conviction after a jury trial of two counts of delivering through the mail a letter threatening the life of the President of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 871(a) (2006). On appeal, Abebe contends that the district court committed procedural sentencing error by failing to adequately explain the sentence, and that the sentence is excessive and thus substantively unreasonable. We review a sentence for reasonableness, abuse of discretion standard of review. 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We affirm. using an Gall v. United States, The first step in this review requires us to ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error. (4th Cir. 2008). United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 Procedural errors include failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence. must make an Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. individualized assessment The district court based on the facts presented by applying the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors to the circumstances of the case. Id. at 50-51 While the district court need not robotically tick through § 3553(a) s every subsection, United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006), the district court should 2 set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)). The court s explanation meaningful must be sufficient to allow for appellate review such that the appellate court need not guess at the district court s rationale. Carter, 564 F.3d at 329-30. (internal quotation marks omitted). A procedural sentencing objection raised for the first time on appeal is reviewed for plain error. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). United States v. By drawing arguments from § 3553 for a sentence different than the one ultimately imposed, court an of aggrieved its party sufficiently responsibility to alerts render an the district individualized explanation addressing those arguments, and thus preserves its claim. Id. at 578. Here, Abebe did not argue for a sentence different than the one ultimately imposed, and thus his claim is reviewed for plain error. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Abebe has not established error, much less plain error. The district Government s court considered recommendation, the and § 3553(a) rendered factors an and the individualized explanation highlighting its reasons for the chosen sentence. 3 Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not procedurally err when imposing sentence. We review the substantive sentence, Abebe s next taking into account circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. reasonableness the totality of of the In cases where, as here, a defendant is subject to multiple terms of imprisonment, the district court concurrently. may order 18 the U.S.C. terms § 3584(a) to run (2006). consecutively In making or this determination, the district court shall consider the factors set forth above, in § 3553(a). the district 18 U.S.C. court § 3584(b) considered the factors in determining Abebe s sentence. (2006). As noted relevant § 3553(a) We conclude that, in the totality of the circumstances in Abebe s case, the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. 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.
