US v. Jermaine Smith, No. 13-4814 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4814 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JERMAINE LAMAR SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:03-cr-00330-REP-11) Submitted: March 13, 2014 Decided: March 26, 2014 Before KING, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Valencia D. Roberts, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Nicholas J. Xenakis, Research & Writing Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, Acting United States Attorney, Michael C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jermaine Lamar Smith admitted several violations of the conditions of his supervised release and was sentenced to six months of imprisonment and an additional twenty-four-month term of supervised release. district court failed imposing that sentence. to On appeal, Smith argues that the adequately explain its reasons for We disagree. We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within range and not plainly unreasonable. the prescribed statutory United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). In determining whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we first consider whether the sentence imposed is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. procedurally Id. or at 438. substantively whether it is plainly so. A Only revocation if we find unreasonable, the must we sentence decide Id. at 439. sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court has considered both the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors and the policy statements contained in Chapter Seven of the Guidelines. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. The district court also must provide an explanation of the chosen sentence, although this explanation need not be as detailed or specific as is required for a sentence imposed upon conviction of the underlying criminal offense. 2 United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). An explanation of sentence upon revocation of supervised release should . . . provide . . . assurance that the sentencing court considered the § 3553(a) factors with regard to the particular defendant before him, and also considered any potentially meritorious arguments raised by the parties with regard to sentencing. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 657 (4th Cir. 2007). Here, the district court s revocation hearing do just that. comments during Smith s See Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (noting that district court s reasons for imposing a withinrange sentence may be clear from context, including the court s statements to the defendant throughout the sentencing hearing ) (internal citation omitted). The district court engaged Smith at length regarding his failure to make sufficient efforts to search for employment and ultimately rejected Smith s suggestion that a limited job market excused his neglect. See Moulden, 478 F.3d at 655 (noting that revocation sentence is intended to sanction the violator for failing to abide by the conditions of the court-ordered supervision and to punish the inherent breach of trust quotation indicated marks by the omitted). defendant s The court behavior ) also pressed (internal Smith on whether, in light of his record, six months imprisonment was sufficient to get [Smith s] attention and correctly disagreed with Smith s suggestion that deterrence 3 was not a proper consideration Webb, 738 when district F.3d 638, court sentence imposing 642 sentence. (4th appropriately would adequately See Cir. 2013) considered deter United States (explaining whether violations v. that revocation of supervised release ). Additionally, echoing its concern regarding Smith s ability and motivation to find employment, the district court explained that an additional term of supervised release would hopefully help incarceration. Smith secure a job and avoid further See United States v. Bennett, 698 F.3d 194, 197- 99 (4th Cir. 2012) (noting that district court is permitted to consider need supervised for rehabilitation release), cert. when denied, 133 imposing S. Ct. term 1506 of (2013). Accordingly, this is not a case where the district court failed to offer any explanation for its sentencing decision or where we are forced to guess at the district court s rationale. States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 329 (4th Cir. United 2009); see Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547. Because there is also no indication that Smith s sentence is substantively unreasonable, we affirm the district court s judgment. revocation See Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440 (explaining that sentence is substantively reasonable if district court states proper basis for concluding that defendant should receive sentence imposed). We 4 dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
