US v. Randy Baker, No. 12-4364 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4364 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. RANDY BAKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:01-cr-00045-MOC-1; 3:01-cr-00145-MOC-1) Submitted: November 27, 2012 Decided: November 30, 2012 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henderson Hill, Director, Ann L. Hester, Assistant Federal Defender, Douglas E. Roberts, Staff Attorney, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Randy Baker revoking his imposing concurrent sentences months imprisonment. On pursuant to two appeals concurrent Anders v. the terms of district of supervised twenty-two appeal, counsel California, court s 386 release months has and filed U.S. order a 738 and ten brief (1967), certifying that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal but questioning whether the unreasonable sentence. district court imposed a plainly Baker was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. has declined to file a response brief. The Government We affirm. A district court possesses broad discretion to impose a sentence revoking a defendant s supervised release term. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). We will within affirm the a sentence statutory imposed maximum and upon not revocation plainly if it is unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). In making this determination, we first consider whether sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. 438. the Id. at A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court considered the Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. U.S.C. § 3583(e) district court (2006); need not Crudup, explain 2 461 its F.3d at reasons 438-40. for See 18 The imposing a revocation sentence in as much detail as in imposing an original sentence, but it still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence it imposed. quotation marks Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal omitted). A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court stated a proper basis for concluding that the defendant should sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. receive the Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. Here, the terms of imprisonment imposed by the court do not exceed the statutory maximums applicable to each offense. See 18 (West 2000 the advisory range, § 3553(a) factors, and arguments posed by both parties. While 2012). U.S.C. The §§ 3559(a), district court 3583(e)(3) considered & Supp. the court did not robotically tick through § 3553(a) s every subsection, it was not required to do so. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). The court adequately explained its rationale and grounded the sentence imposed in proper bases, including Baker s repeated pattern of supervised release violations, the incarceration he had already served due to prior revocations, and its conclusion that Baker had proven unsupervisable. Thus, our review of the record reveals that Baker s sentence is not unreasonable, let alone plainly so. 3 In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for review. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Baker, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Baker 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 Baker. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this 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.
