US v. Roberto Texidore, No. 13-4825 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4825 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERTO TEXIDORE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:10-cr-00179-MOC-1) Submitted: June 10, 2014 Decided: June 17, 2014 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leslie Carter Rawls, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, William M. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roberto Texidore appeals the six-month sentence imposed upon the district court s revocation of his supervised release. Texidore unreasonable. alleges that his sentence is plainly For the following reasons, we affirm. In reviewing a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release, we take[] a more deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than reasonableness review for [G]uidelines sentences. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, we will affirm a supervised release revocation sentence if it is not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010). The first step is to determine whether the sentence is unreasonable. (4th Cir. 2006). substantively second United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 step, Only unreasonable which is plainly unreasonable. reasonable if if to will sentence the determine Id. at 439. the district statements contained in Guidelines and the the court Chapter applicable 18 is inquiry whether procedurally proceed the to sentence or the is A sentence is procedurally has considered Seven of U.S.C. the the policy Sentencing § 3553(a) (2012) factors, Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440, and has adequately explained the sentence chosen, though it need not explain the sentence in 2 as much detail Thompson, 595 as when F.3d at imposing 547. A the original sentence is sentence. substantively reasonable if the district court states a proper basis for its imposition of a sentence up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. We reasonable. conclude that Texidore s six-month sentence is A review of the record confirms that the district court considered the advisory policy statement range and the applicable § 3553(a) factors and stated a proper basis for the sentence imposed. See United States v. Rivera-Santana, 668 F.3d 95, 105 (4th Cir. 2012) (recognizing that court will credit an articulation [of the § 3553(a) factors] as clear and appropriate, when the reasons [given by the district court] can be matched tailored marks to to a the factor appropriate defendant s for situation ) consideration (internal and quotation omitted). Here, the district court s Texidore s sentence was adequate. stated rationale for In this regard, a sentencing court need only set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that [it] reasoned has basis authority. considered for the exercising parties [its] own arguments legal and has a decisionmaking Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). Thus, for each sentence, the court must place on the record an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of the 3 case before it. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th Cir. 2010) (noting that, [w]hen imposing a sentence within the Guidelines, . . . the explanation need not be elaborate or lengthy ). We conclude that the district court made clear its reasons for imposing Texidore s sentence and factors it found relevant to the sentence. for explanation was diminished both by the § 3553(a) Moreover, the need the fact that the district court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence and the fact that the district court was imposing sentence on a revocation matter. See Rita, 551 U.S. at 356 ( [W]hen a judge decides simply to apply the Guidelines to a particular case, doing so will not necessarily require lengthy explanation. ); Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 ( A court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a post-conviction 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.
