US v. Kareem Roberson, No. 10-5149 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5149 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. KAREEM SAINT ROBERSON, a/k/a Poncho, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (7:95-cr-00045-BR-2) Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: July 15, 2011 Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Kareem Saint Roberson appeals from his fifty-one-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. appeal, he asserts unreasonable. that his sentence is On substantively We affirm. Roberson contends on appeal that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court did not make an individualized assessment of his argument for a downward variance from the Sentencing Guidelines range. asked the court to consider sentencing Defense counsel Roberson below the Sentencing Guidelines range of fifty-one to sixty months for the supervised release violation in consideration of the over four years Roberson served for the criminal conduct involved and because he is a relatively young man who could make something of himself after incarceration. court made served a an finding Roberson argues on appeal that the that imprisonment all term defendants for who criminal had previously conduct that constituted a supervised release violation could argue for a variance based on time served. Roberson argues that the court improperly rejected the argument without considering it as a mitigating factor in his individual case. A release sentence should statutory be maximum imposed affirmed and is after if not it revocation is plainly 2 within of supervised the applicable unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). In making this determination, the court first considers whether the sentence is unreasonable. Id. at 438. This initial inquiry takes a more deferential appellate 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). follow[s] generally In making its review, the court the procedural and substantive considerations that [are] employ[ed] in [the] review of original sentences, . . . with some necessary modifications to take into account the sentences. unique nature of supervised release revocation Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-39. A sentence imposed upon revocation of release is substantively reasonable if the district court stated a proper basis for concluding that the defendant should sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. at 440. The unreasonable. unreasonable court Id. will should plainly unreasonable. affirm if the 439. Only if a sentence decide whether the Id. the Crudup, 461 F.3d court at the receive sentence is is not found sentence is [T]he court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke its previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. Here, the district court Id. considered Roberson s argument for a downward variance based on the time served on the 3 criminal conduct related to his supervised release violation and rejected it. explanation individual Although for Roberson rejecting consideration the of argues argument his case, that did the the not court s evince court s an reasoning directly addressed the argument and rejected it on its merits. The court explicitly considered the Guidelines range as well as the statutory consider when court s broad sentence at factors of arriving at discretion, the lowest substantively sufficient. for a downward ยง variance 3553 that it was permitted a sentence. the reasons stated of Guidelines end the Further, for given to the imposing range a were The court rejected Roberson s request and heard argument that Roberson disregarded the conditions of supervised release by immediately committing another drug offense. The court acknowledged Roberson s younger age, but stated that the sentence imposed was necessary to provide adequate deterrence and to promote respect for the law. Thus, the fifty-one month sentence for Roberson s violation of supervised release was not an abuse of discretion. Moreover, challenging his Roberson sentence. faces Even if a very he heavy could show burden in that his sentence was unreasonable, he would still need to show that it was plainly unreasonable. A sentence is plainly unreasonable if it run[s] afoul of clearly settled law. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 548 (4th Cir. 2010). Roberson has not 4 cited clearly court s settled sentence, and law the that was record violated does not by the reveal district any such obvious errors. We revocation therefore of supervised affirm the release. sentence We imposed dispense with upon 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 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.
