US v. Devin Means, Jr., No. 13-4785 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4785 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DEVIN ROCHARD Rochard Means, MEANS, JR., a/k/a Little D, a/k/a Devin Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:07-cr-01467-HMH-5) Submitted: April 24, 2014 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. DUNCAN, Decided: Circuit Judges, and May 2, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lora E. Collins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, William J. Watkins, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Devin Rochard Means, Jr., appeals from his twenty-four-month sentence imposed pursuant to the revocation of his supervised release. On appeal, Means avers that his sentence was plainly unreasonable because the district court did not give individualized reasoning for the chosen sentence. * We affirm. We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release maximum and not Crudup, 461 F.3d review, we if it is within the applicable plainly (4th United States v. unreasonable. 433, statutory follow 437 generally Cir. the 2006). In procedural and making our substantive considerations that [are] employ[ed] in [the] review of original sentences, . . . with some necessary modifications to take into account the unique sentences. Id. procedurally or at nature of supervised Only 438-39. substantively release sentence if a unreasonable whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. will Id. revocation we is found decide (emphasis in original). * Means counsel initially filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there were no meritorious issues for appeal. However, when our review of the record pursuant to Anders revealed non-frivolous claims, we ordered counsel to file a merits brief. Means merits brief challenges only the adequacy of the court s explanation of sentence and, therefore, waives all other claims. 2 When imposing sentence, the district court must provide individualized reasoning: The sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority . . . . Where the defendant . . . presents nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a different sentence than that set forth in the advisory Guidelines, a district judge should address the party s arguments and explain why he has rejected those arguments. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). The Carter rationale applies to revocation hearings; however, [a] court need revocation not be as sentence detailed as it post-conviction sentence. 544, 547-48 (4th Cir. or must specific be when when imposing imposing a a United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 2010) (noting that a district court s reasoning may be clear from context and the court s statements throughout the sentencing hearing may be considered). In fact, in may a case hard-pressed of supervised to find any release revocation, explanation for we be within-range, revocation sentences insufficient given the amount of deference . . . afford[ed to] district courts when imposing these sentences; but a district court may not simply impose sentence without giving any indication of its reasons for doing so. Id. (emphasis in original). [I]f a party repeats on appeal a claim of procedural sentencing error . . . [that] it has made before the district 3 court, [this court] review[s] for abuse of discretion and will reverse unless it concludes that the error was harmless. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010). For instance, the if an aggrieved party sufficiently alerts district court of its responsibility to render an individualized explanation by drawing (2012) a sentence for arguments from different 18 than U.S.C. the one § 3553(a) ultimately imposed, the party sufficiently preserves its claim. 578. Id. at However, we review unpreserved non-structural sentencing errors for plain error. Id. at 576 77. To establish plain error, a defendant must show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights. United States v. Aidoo, 670 F.3d 600, 611 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 627 (2012). Finally, plain errors should only be corrected where not doing so would result in a miscarriage of justice. United States v. Robinson, 627 F.3d 941, 954 (4th Cir. 2010). Because counsel did not request a sentence below the Guidelines range, we review for plain sentence falls five years 18 U.S.C. error. Here, within the imprisonment. there is applicable 18 the Chapter dispute statutory U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2012). objection no that the maximum § 3559(a)(1) of (2012); The district court also adopted without 7 advisory 4 policy statement range of twenty-four to thirty months imprisonment and heard argument from counsel and allocution from Means. reveals that sentence. the Such Thompson, 595 court was F.3d offered error, at 548 no and However, the record reasoning the (noting error that for was the its chosen plain. See requirement to provide a minimal statement of reasons for the sentence imposed in revocation proceedings is clearly settled ). However, we conclude that the error did not affect Means substantial rights. Means was sentenced to the bottom of the policy statement range, his counsel did not request a lower sentence, and a district court has broad discretion to impose sentence. imposed Means a does not argue lower explanation, argument. sentence had and nothing it in the that the court provided record a would more supports have thorough such an See United States v. Knight, 606 F.3d 171, 178 (4th Cir. 2010) (explaining that, to demonstrate that a sentencing error affected defendant s substantial rights, the defendant must show that he would have received a lower sentence had the error not occurred). In addition, there was no miscarriage of justice in this case. it had Although the court s explanation did not reveal that considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors, the court explicitly adopted the probation officer s Guidelines range as calculated in his violation report, and the report addressed the 5 facts and circumstances underlying listened criminal to of Means conduct. counsel s violation, Moreover, argument, as self-reporting that Means requested. as the the well court court as his clearly permitted the Given that counsel did not request a lower sentence, the court acted well within the bounds of justice by imposing a presumptively reasonable sentence at the low end of the advisory Guidelines range. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010) ( [W]e may and do treat on appeal a district court s decision to impose a sentence within reasonable. ). the As such, Guidelines we range decline to as presumptively correct the district court s error. Accordingly, Means sentence is affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 6

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.