US v. Antonio Blevins, No. 12-4764 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4764 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTONIO DEMON BLEVINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:12-cr-00217-FL-1) Submitted: March 8, 2013 Decided: April 5, 2013 Before DIAZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Antonio sentence release. Demon imposed following Blevins Blevins the claims appeals his revocation that his of fourteen his month supervised sentence is plainly unreasonable because the district court impermissibly considered promoting respect for the law during its imposition. § 3553(a)(2)(A) (2006). 18 U.S.C. After careful review of the record, we affirm. A district court has broad discretion when imposing sentence upon revoking a term of supervised release. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). We will affirm such a sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). In making this determination, we first consider whether the sentence imposed is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. will we then decide Id. at 438. whether the Only if we so find, sentence is plainly unreasonable, relying on the definition of plain that we use in our plain error analysis. Id. at 439. Because Blevins did not allege the district court s improper reliance on 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) below, he must also satisfy the additional requirements of plain error review. See United States v. Bennett, 698 F.3d 194, 199-200 (4th Cir. 2012) (unpreserved claim that 2 district court considered impermissible factor when imposing revocation sentence is reviewed for plain error), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 2013 WL 359745 (U.S. Mar. 4, 2013). Accordingly, Blevins must show that 1) the district court erred, 2) the error is clear and obvious, and 3) the error affected his substantial rights. v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34 (1993). United States Blevins has not met these requirements. As Blevins correctly notes, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2006) mandates that a district court consider a majority of the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when imposing a revocation sentence. however, 18 are U.S.C. the § need 3583(e). for the Omitted sentence from to § 3583(e), reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just Accordingly, a punishment. district 18 court may U.S.C. not § 3553(a)(2)(A). impose a revocation sentence based predominantly on such considerations. 461 F.3d at 439. Commission s Crudup, To do so contravenes the U.S. Sentencing direction that at revocation the court should sanction primarily the defendant s breach of trust, while taking into account, to a limited degree, the seriousness of the underlying violation and the criminal history of the violator. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ch. 7, pt. A(3)(b) (2010). Here, sentence does the not district indicate court s a explanation plainly 3 improper of Blevins reliance on § 3553(a)(2)(A). Although the district court uttered a single, passing reference to promoting respect for the law, it is clear that the comment consideration of was made Blevins in reference repeated to attempts the to court s evade his probation officer and refusal to willingly accept responsibility for his conduct. Accordingly, the court s challenged phrasing clearly and properly referred to the need to punish Blevins violation of the court s trust. In addition, the district court properly considered the need to deter similar conduct when it imposed Blevins sentence. Thus, we find no violation of § 3583(e), plain or otherwise. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 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.
