US v. Sana Sanford, No. 10-4498 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4498 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SANA LEE SANFORD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:99-cr-00197-1) Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: January 6, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Christian M. Capece, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin, II, United States Attorney, Monica L. Dillon, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sana Lee imposed upon Sanford argues Sanford revocation of on appeal because unreasonable appeals the his that the term his district fifteen-month of supervised sentence court is failed sufficient explanation for the sentence imposed. We will not disturb a sentence release. procedurally to provide a We affirm. sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed statutory range and is not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437-39 (4th Cir. 2006). In making this determination, unreasonable. we first consider Id. at 438. whether the sentence is This initial inquiry takes a more deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than reasonableness review for guidelines United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th sentences. Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The however. 2010). district court s discretion is not unlimited, United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. For instance, the district court commits procedural error by failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence or by not providing an individualized assessment based on the facts. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). court need revocation not be sentence as as detailed it must 2 or be Although [a] specific when imposing when imposing a a post- conviction sentence, . . . it still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed. Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judge also must 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). Sanford does not challenge the revocation of his supervised release or the calculation of his policy statement range. His sole contention is that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the sentence imposed and that this procedural error rendered his sentence plainly unreasonable. Sanford did not request a sentence outside the policy statement range. Therefore, we review his challenge to the adequacy of the explanation for the within-policy statement range sentence for plain error. Cf. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 580 (4th Cir. 2010) (finding error not preserved where defendant failed to seek sentence outside guidelines range). Sanford questions this court s use of unreasonable standard as provided in Crudup. Sanford acknowledges, a panel of this court cannot precedent set by another panel. United States v. F.3d 233, 251 n.12 (4th Cir. 2007). 3 the plainly However, as overrule the Foster, 507 To establish plain error, [Sanford] must show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights. 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007). United States v. Muhammad, Even if Sanford satisfies these requirements, correction of the error remains within [the court s] discretion, which [the court] should not exercise . . . unless the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation quotation marks of and judicial citation proceedings. omitted) Id. (third (internal alteration in original). In the sentencing context, an error affects substantial rights if the defendant can show that the sentence imposed was longer than that to which he would otherwise be subject. United States v. Washington, 404 F.3d 834, 849 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 916 (8th Cir. 2009) ( In the sentencing context, an error was prejudicial only if there is a reasonable probability that the defendant would have received a lighter sentence but for the error. ). Here, Sanford does not dispute that the policy statement range was properly calculated and he was sentenced at the bottom of that range. Sanford arguments for deviating from that range. failed to present any Therefore, regardless of whether the district court committed an error and whether any 4 such error failure to was plain, more Sanford thoroughly cannot explain show the that the court s supervised release revocation sentence affected his substantial rights. Therefore, he cannot establish plain error. Accordingly, we conclude that Sanford s sentence is not plainly unreasonable and affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
