US v. Richard Pate, No. 12-4122 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4122 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RICHARD PATRICK PATE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:07-cr-00130-PMD-1) Submitted: November 26, 2012 Decided: January 7, 2013 Before KING, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cameron J. Blazer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Alston C. Badger, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Richard Patrick Pate appeals the twenty-four-month term of imprisonment imposed after revocation of his supervised Pate argues that the sentence runs afoul of Tapia v. release. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011). We agree. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand for resentencing. We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010). For a sentence to be plainly unreasonable, . . . it must run afoul of clearly settled law. Id. at 548. In Tapia, the Supreme Court held that a district court could not impose or lengthen a term of imprisonment in order to promote an 2392-93. offender s sentences. We rehabilitation. recently held that Tapia Tapia, 131 applies S. to Ct. at revocation United States v. Bennett, __ F.3d __, __, 2012 WL 5265802, at *1-*3 (4th Cir. Oct. 25, 2012) (No. 11-4401). Here, nine months. the applicable U.S. Guidelines Sentencing § 7B1.4(a), p.s. (2011). range Guidelines was Manual three to ( USSG ) The district court advised Pate that nine months in jail is [not] going to help you, but I m going to give you two years in jail so that you can get the best drug treatment that we have available. sentenced Pate to twenty-four 2 (J.A. 30). months The court then imprisonment, the statutory which was maximum fifteen Guidelines range. provided months in 18 longer U.S.C. than § 3583(e)(3) the high end (2006), of the Our review of the proceeding confirms that the district court selected its chosen sentence based on Pate s rehabilitative needs, a rationale expressly prohibited in Tapia and Bennett. Of course, we acknowledge that the district court did not have the benefit of our decision in Bennett when it sentenced Pate Nevertheless, we on the supervised find that Tapia release alone violations. constituted clearly settled law on this matter, as there was no reason to believe its holding would not apply in this context. We thus conclude that Pate s sentence is plainly unreasonable. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for resentencing. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED 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.
