US v. Sanchez Horlbeck, No. 12-4140 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4140 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. SANCHEZ R. HORLBECK. Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:02-cr-00821-PMD-1) Submitted: August 16, 2012 Decided: August 20, 2012 Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cameron J. Blazer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Peter Thomas Phillips, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sanchez sentence R. Horlbeck imposed upon appeals revocation of from his his thirty-month supervised release. Horlbeck admitted two Grade A, one Grade B, and two Grade C violations related to distribution and possession of illegal drugs, associating with persons engaged in criminal activity, and failure to submit complete monthly reports. On appeal, counsel has filed an Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), brief stating that there are no meritorious issues, but raising whether Horlbeck s sentence was plainly unreasonable. Although advised of his right to do so, Horlbeck has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. A We affirm. district court has broad discretion to impose sentence upon revoking a defendant s supervised release. States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). a United We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within the applicable statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). In determining whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we first assess the sentence for reasonableness, substantive original follow[ing] considerations sentences. Id. that at generally we employ 438. A the in procedural our review supervised and of release revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district 2 court considered the Sentencing Guidelines Chapter 7 advisory policy statements and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors that it is permitted revocation case. to consider in a supervised See Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. release Although the court need not explain the reasons for imposing a revocation sentence in as much detail as when it imposes an original sentence, it still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed. quotation marks Thompson, 595 omitted). A F.3d at 547 revocation (internal sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court stated a proper basis for concluding the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. Only if a sentence unreasonable will is we plainly unreasonable. After revocation then procedurally decide whether or substantively the sentence is Id. at 439. review sentence found Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. of is the record, not we plainly conclude that unreasonable. the The thirty-month prison term does not exceed the applicable maximum allowed by statute. of Horlbeck s The district court considered the argument counsel, the Guidelines advisory range, the recommendation of the Government, and addressed on the record Horlbeck s significant criminal history and inability to comply with supervised readiness and release drug even after treatment 3 participation programs. See in 18 work U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(C); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Ch. 7, Pt. A, introductory cmt. 3(b) (2011). The district court adequately explained its rationale for imposing sentence, and the reasons relied upon are proper bases for the sentence imposed. Accordingly, we conclude that Horlbeck s sentence was reasonable, and we affirm the district court s judgment. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. This court requires that counsel inform Horlbeck, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Horlbeck requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Horlbeck. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the 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.
