US v. Edward Shipman, No. 10-4337 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4337 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EDWARD VENEZ SHIPMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:03-cr-00044-F-1) Submitted: October 29, 2010 Decided: November 12, 2010 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, James E. Todd, Jr., Research and Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. MayParker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Edward Venez Shipman appeals the twenty-four-month sentence he received upon revocation of his supervised release. He contends that the district court imposed a plainly unreasonable sentence, failing to address mitigating factors and to provide sufficient reason for a sentence above the 7-13-month revocation range set out in Chapter 7 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2009). We affirm. The district court has broad discretion to impose a sentence upon revoking a defendant s supervised release. States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). United We will affirm unless the sentence is plainly unreasonable in light of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). We must unreasonable. first decide Id. at 438. whether the sentence is In doing so, we follow generally the procedural and substantive considerations used in reviewing original sentences. if the district contained in Id.. court Chapter 7 A sentence is procedurally reasonable has of considered the the guidelines policy and the statements applicable § 3553(a) factors, id. at 440, and has adequately explained the sentence chosen, though it need not explain the sentence in as much detail as when imposing the original sentence. 595 F.3d at 547. Thompson, A sentence is substantively reasonable if the 2 district court states a proper basis for its imposition of a sentence up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. If, are after considering the above, we convinced Shipman s this sentence unreasonable. court s is deferential not the Id. at 439. sentence is not unreasonable, we will affirm. Under that standard procedurally or of review, substantively Shipman argues that the district court failed to consider his inability to secure a stable residence. He also claims that the court failed to give sufficient reasons for the extent of its variance above the guideline range, and thus failed to follow the mandate in § 3553(a) to impose a sentence sufficient but not statute s sentencing probation officer s greater than purposes. testimony necessary The about court his to fulfill the heard the also effort to supervise Shipman for over a year and Shipman s lack of cooperation, as evidenced by his repeated marijuana use, additional criminal conduct, failure to stay in contact with the probation officer, and unwillingness to return to a residential reentry center to remedy his Shipman s homeless statement state. in which Last, he the district asserted that court the heard probation officer had failed to help him despite his requests for help. The district court expressly considered the advisory Chapter 7 guideline range of 7-13 months. However, the court determined that the guideline range did not adequately account 3 for Shipman s pattern of refusing to follow the rules, thus impliedly accepting the probation officer s version of events during his period of supervised release. should sanction primarily the A revocation sentence defendant s USSG ch. 7, pt. A, intro. cmt. 3(b). breach of trust. We conclude that Shipman s twenty-four-month sentence was not unreasonable. We district facts court. and materials therefore legal before We affirm dispense the with sentence oral argument contentions are adequately the and argument court imposed by the because the presented would not in the 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.
