US v. Carl Robinson, No. 12-4811 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4811 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CARL ANTONIO ROBINSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (6:06-cr-00012-NKM-2) Submitted: April 2, 2013 Before KING and Circuit Judge. FLOYD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and April 9, 2013 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender for the Western District of Virginia, Christine Madeleine Lee, Research and Writing Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Donald R. Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carl Antonio Robinson appeals the district court s judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to eighteen months in prison. Robinson asserts that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court was not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2006) to consider, as it did, whether the sentence reflected the seriousness of the revocation offenses, promoted respect for the law, and provided just punishment. This Having considered this argument, we affirm. court will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed statutory range and is not plainly unreasonable. States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438-40 (4th Cir. 2006). district court must consider the Chapter Seven United While a policy statements, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Ch. 7, Pt. B, and the statutory factors applicable to revocation sentences under § 3583(e) and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), the district court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke supervised release and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-39. A procedurally supervised reasonable release if the revocation district court sentence is considered the Chapter 7 advisory policy statements and the § 3553(a) factors applicable to supervised release revocation and explained its 2 reasons for the sentence imposed. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439-40. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); Section 3553(a)(2)(A) is not among the factors cited in § 3583(e) for consideration. sentence stated is a substantively proper basis receive the sentence Crudup, 461 F.3d reasonable for concluding imposed, at if 440. up the to Only the the if A revocation district defendant statutory a sentence court should maximum. is found procedurally or substantively unreasonable will this court then decide whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. Id. at 439 (emphasis omitted). Here, the district court did mention the § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment in explaining the sentence imposed. But the court also specifically relied on other § 3553(a) factors the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant, and implicitly referenced the need violent behavior. to protect the public from 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(C). Robinson's Thus, the district court s statement of reasons is not contrary to our decision in Crudup, 461 F.3d 439-40. The district court primarily based the revocation sentence on permissible factors, rendering the resulting sentence not plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Lewis, 498 F.3d 393, 399-400 (6th Cir. 2007) 3 (rejecting per se rule that consideration of § 3553(a)(2)(A) results in unreasonable sentence, plainly or otherwise, and instead interpreting § 3583(e) as requiring consideration of the enumerated factors in § 3553(a) without forbidding consideration of other relevant factors); United States v. Williams, 443 F.3d 35, 47-48 (2d Cir. 2006) (same); cf. United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182-83 (9th Cir. 2006) (stating in dicta that, though it did not suggest that a mere reference to promoting respect for the law would in itself render a sentence unreasonable, it could result in reversible error if the record failed to establish that permissible factors were properly considered and formed basis of sentence). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal 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.
