US v. Wade Hankin, No. 10-4759 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4759 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WADE TEMPLE HANKINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:05-cr-00025-F-1) Submitted: April 6, 2011 Decided: April 15, 2011 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan Dubois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Wade Temple Hankins appeals his twenty-four month sentence imposed following his revocation of supervised release. Hankins argues that his sentence is plainly unreasonable because the district court procedurally erred by failing to adequately address his request to run his federal sentence concurrent with his undischarged state sentence to allow his participation in an inmate construction program while in state custody. Finding no error, we affirm. We review Hankins supervised release revocation sentence to determine if it is plainly unreasonable. States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). consider whether the sentence is unreasonable. Crudup, 461 F.3d reasonableness, substantive 433, we 438 (4th follow considerations sentences. Id. Cir. employed the in We first United States v. 2006). generally United In determining procedural reviewing and original However, [t]his initial inquiry takes a more deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion [G]uidelines sentences. than reasonableness review for Moulden, 478 F.3d at 656 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The district court's discretion is not unlimited, however. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). For instance, the district 2 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 as sentence detailed as it or must Although [a] specific when when imposing be 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 district court 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 (internal quotation marks omitted). 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not err in ordering Hankins twenty-four month sentence to run consecutively to his state term. Accordingly, we conclude that Hankins sentence is not plainly unreasonable. We dispense thus with affirm oral the district argument because court s the judgment. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
