US v. Lynn Edmonds, Jr., No. 13-4054 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4054 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LYNN T. EDMONDS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:08-cr-00317-JAG-2) Submitted: June 19, 2013 Before TRAXLER, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: and DUNCAN and July 18, 2013 KEENAN, Circuit Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, Robert J. Wagner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; Michael A. Jagels, Special Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lynn T. Edmonds, Jr. appeals his eighteen-month sentence for violating a condition of his supervised release. argues that the district court impermissibly Edmonds considered the seriousness of the release violations when the court imposed his sentence. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the district court s judgment. Edmonds was convicted in 2008 of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, and received a sentence of 71 months imprisonment 1 for that offense. His sentence also included a four-year term of supervised release. supervised release, the district As a condition of that court ordered that Edmonds participate in an approved substance abuse treatment program. Seven months after his release from prison, Edmonds probation officer filed a petition on supervised release (the petition). The petition alleged that Edmonds had violated several conditions of his supervision, resulting from: (1) his commission of the felony offense of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon; and (2) his commission of three misdemeanor offenses, including the sale and 1 distribution of marijuana, Edmonds sentence of imprisonment was eventually reduced pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), and he served a total of 47 months in prison. 2 driving with district a license, 2 suspended without receiving the and leaving permission of the his judicial probation officer. The probation officer later filed an addendum to the petition alleging satisfactorily that Edmonds participate in a also had substance fail[ed] abuse to treatment program. The district court considered the petition and addendum at a hearing held in January 2013. The court found Edmonds guilty of two charged violations of supervised release, which resulted from his acts of driving without a license and of failing to satisfactorily The court found violations. to complete support Additionally, Edmonds a substance not guilty abuse of the treatment remaining program. alleged The court held that there was insufficient evidence the the firearm court and concluded drug-related that there allegations. would be no reason for Edmonds to have known that he had left the judicial district when he merely had traveled to a nearby town, and, therefore, the court found Edmonds not guilty of the alleged supervised release violation of leaving the judicial district without permission. 2 At the violation hearing, defense counsel clarified that Edmonds had been convicted of driving without a license, rather than driving with a suspended license, as alleged in the petition. 3 Before that substance the sentence, violation the imposing for Edmonds abuse treatment the district failure program was to very court stated complete the serious, and observed that Edmonds original offense was drug-related. court sentenced Edmonds to an eighteen-month The term of imprisonment (the revocation sentence), an upward variance from the six-to-twelve month advisory range established by the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Edmonds concedes that the applicable standard of review on appeal is for plain error, based on his failure to object in the district court to the matters he raises here. therefore we reference to review the for plain seriousness error of the the We agree, and district release court s violation. See United States v. Bennett, 698 F.3d 194, 199-200 (4th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, Edmonds must establish that the district court erred, that the error was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights. Id. at 200 (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993)). To determine whether the district court erred, we consider whether the revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable. Bennett, 698 F.3d at 200; United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 436-38 (4th Cir. 2006). was unreasonable, substantive We first evaluate whether the sentence follow[ing] considerations generally that 4 we employ the in procedural our review and of original sentences, making certain modifications to take into account the unique sentences. nature of supervised Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-39. release revocation In doing so, we adhere to a deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion. Id. at 439 (citation omitted). If we conclude that a revocation sentence is unreasonable, we then consider unreasonable. whether the sentence was plainly, or clearly, Id. When imposing a revocation sentence, a district court is directed to consider certain enumerated statutory factors that also are required for consideration of sentences imposed in the first instance. These factors include the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need for deterrence and to protect the public, the defendant s need for various correctional treatments, any guidelines or policy statements issued by the United States unwarranted Sentencing sentence Commission, disparities restitution for victims. with the other need to avoid defendants, and See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)). We note, however, that some of the sentencing factors listed in § 3553(a) applicable to original sentences are not applicable to revocation revocation sentence sentences, reflects the 5 including seriousness of whether the the offense, promotes respect for the law, and provides just punishment for the offense. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-39 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)) (internal omitted). We thus criminal conduct alterations have emphasized not the Crudup, sentence. is primary 461 F.3d at and that quotation punishment purpose 437-38 of a (citation marks for new revocation omitted). Rather, we view the defendant s failure to follow the courtimposed conditions of supervised release as a breach of trust. Id. at 437 (internal alterations and quotation marks omitted); see also U.S.S.G. App x § 3(b) ( [A]t 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. ). Edmonds only contention on appeal is that the district court procedurally statutory factor erred in when it imposing considered his an sentence, seriousness of the supervised release violation. unauthorized namely, the Edmonds points to various statements the district court made at the violation hearing, including the court s statement that it considered Edmonds failure to attend substance abuse treatment to be a very serious violation, which was very troubling. We conclude that the district court did not plainly err in articulating its reasons for 6 imposing the eighteen-month sentence. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) and § 3553(a)(1), the court was permitted to consider the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant. The transcript of the violation district court found Edmonds substance abuse treatment hearing indicates failure troubling to and that the participate in serious, because that condition of supervised release gave Edmonds a chance to take care of the [drug] problem that got him [to court] in the first place. This reasoning relating to the circumstances of Edmonds release violation and to his personal characteristics was plainly within the permissible factors set forth in Section 3583(e). Moreover, the district court found that Edmonds exhibited a lack of respect for his probation officer and the conditions of supervision when Edmonds falsely told his probation officer that Edmonds substance treatment. abuse counselor had allowed him to stop These findings were proper, because they related directly to Edmonds breach of the court s trust and reflected a central purpose of revocation sentences. See Crudup, 461 F.3d at 437. Finally, the district court entered an order following the violation hearing memorializing provided in part: 7 its findings. The order The Court considered the policy statements in Chapter Seven of the United States Sentencing Guidelines and the factors in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) & 3583(e). Based on the defendant s breach of trust and his misstatements to the Court and the probation officer about his substance abuse treatment, the Court SENTENCES the defendant to 18 months of imprisonment with no supervised release to follow. These stated findings further support our conclusion that the district court relied on proper factors in imposing Edmonds revocation sentence. District revocation court s] release. courts sentences have orders for governing substantial those latitude defendants their Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438. conduct who in devising violate during [the supervised In light of the record and the deference owed to the district court, we affirm Edmonds sentence. 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 8
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.
