US v. Hal Broadbent, III, No. 12-4345 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4345 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HAL EDWARD BROADBENT, III, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:11-cr-00163-HCM-1) Submitted: November 27, 2012 Decided: November 30, 2012 Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt Walter B. Dalton, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Richard D. Cooke, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Hal Edward Broadbent, III, appeals the revocation of his probation and sentence of thirteen months imprisonment. Broadbent argues that his sentence is plainly unreasonable in light of Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011). We affirm. Contrary to the Government s assertion on appeal, we conclude that Broadbent properly preserved the Tapia issue for appeal. We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). The first step in this review requires a determination of whether the sentence is unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). A probation revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court considered the advisory policy statement range and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, all of which apply to probation revocation. 656 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a) Moulden, 478 F.3d at (2006)). A sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court stated a proper basis for imposing its selected sentence, up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. For a sentence to be plainly unreasonable, . . . it must run afoul of clearly settled 2 law. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 548 (4th Cir. 2010). In Tapia, the Supreme Court held that, in selecting a sentence following conviction, a district court could not impose or lengthen a term of imprisonment offender s rehabilitation. Tapia applies to in order to promote an Tapia, 131 S. Ct. at 2385, 2392-93. revocation sentences. United Bennett, 698 F.3d 195, 197-98 (4th Cir. 2012). States v. A review of the multiple sentencing proceedings in this case reveals that the district court selected its chosen sentence based on Broadbent s continuous refusal probation. would to comply with the conditions of his While the district court did opine that Broadbent benefit Broadbent s from failure medical to treatment, comply with the it also noted prescribed program created a danger to himself and others. that treatment It is clear that the district court did not impose a sentence solely to promote rehabilitation and, thus, did not violate the mandate of Tapia. Our review of the record confirms that Broadbent s sentence is also not otherwise plainly unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 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.
