US v. Norman Groom, No. 10-4727 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4727 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. NORMAN LEE GROOMS, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:91-cr-00005-nkm-mfu-1) Submitted: November 24, 2010 Decided: December 23, 2010 Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Andrea L. Harris, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine Lee, Research and Writing Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Nancy S. Healey, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Norman imposed on Lee him Grooms upon appeals revocation the of eleven-month sentence supervised release. his Grooms argues that his sentence is plainly unreasonable because consideration of the relevant factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) supports imposition of a sentence shorter than eleven months. He also contends that the district court failed to adequately explain its reasons for his sentence and did not address factors supporting a downward variance. This revocation court of unreasonable. will affirm supervised United (4th Cir. 2010). release States v. first step The a We affirm. sentence if it Thompson, in this imposed is 595 not F.3d review plainly 544, initial Crudup, inquiry 461 F.3d takes a 433, more 438 (4th Cir. 2006). deferential 546 requires determination of whether the sentence is unreasonable. States v. after appellate a United This posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than reasonableness review for guidelines sentences. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Crudup, 461 F.3d standard of review at for 439) (applying probation plainly revocation). unreasonable Only if the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable does the inquiry proceed to the second step of the analysis to determine 2 whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-39. A supervised procedurally reasonable release if the revocation district sentence court is considered the advisory policy statement range based upon Chapter Seven of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors applicable to supervised release revocation. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-40. See A sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court stated a proper basis for concluding the defendant should receive the sentence Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. imposed, up to the statutory maximum. A court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a post- conviction sentence, but it still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed. Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks omitted). We reasonable. concerning history find that Grooms sentence is procedurally The district court engaged counsel in a discussion an and appropriate his release violation. conduct sentence leading in to light the of Grooms instant past supervised The court concluded Grooms demonstrated an unwillingness to follow the provisions of his supervised release and it sentenced him accordingly. 3 Grooms maintains his sentence did not rest on a proper basis and relies unwillingness to principally consider on the the lengthy already served for his original offense. court s approach was the correct one. district sentence court s Grooms has However, the district While it did not consider Grooms original offense, it did consider the circumstances of his instant violation considerations in enumerated in the context of § 3553(a). the We applicable therefore find Grooms sentence substantively reasonable. Accordingly, judgment. legal before affirm the district court s We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the we court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
