US v. Kristopher Huffman, No. 13-4880 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4880 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KRISTOPHER AARON HUFFMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, Chief District Judge. (3:11-cr-00043-1) Submitted: March 10, 2014 Decided: March 14, 2014 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian J. Kornbrath, Acting Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, Lex A. Coleman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Joseph F. Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kristopher Aaron Huffman appeals the sentence of ten months of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of probation. On appeal, Huffman does not contest the district court s decision to revoke his probation, and acknowledges that the district court properly calculated both advisory Guidelines ranges and gave the parties sentence. sentence an opportunity to argue (Appellant s Br. at 11). is plainly unreasonable for an appropriate Huffman argues that his because the district court procedurally erred by failing to adequately explain why the sentence necessary it imposed to was comply (Appellant s Br. at 8). sufficient, with the but not purposes greater of than sentencing. We affirm. Upon a finding of a probation violation, the district court may revoke probation and resentence the defendant to any sentence within the statutory maximum for the original offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a) (2012); United States v. Schaefer, 120 F.3d 505, 507 revocation sentences, (4th Cir. 1997). sentences, to determine This like if court supervised they are review[s] probation release revocation plainly unreasonable. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). The first step in this analysis is a determination of whether the sentence was unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). 2 Although a district court must consider the policy statements in Chapter Seven of the sentencing guidelines along with the statutory requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012), the court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke its previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Moulden, 478 F.3d at 65657. a A court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a post- conviction sentence, but it still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed. 595 F.3d 544, omitted). 547 (4th Cir. United States v. Thompson, 2010) (internal quotation marks We may be hard-pressed to find any explanation for within-range revocation sentences insufficient given the amount of deference sentences . we . . afford . district Id. If courts a when sentence imposing imposed these after a revocation is not unreasonable, this court will not proceed to the second prong of the analysis whether the sentence was plainly unreasonable. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court sentencing reasonable. provided determination, Thus, it an adequate and the necessarily sentence is not plainly unreasonable. 3 explanation of its sentence is procedurally follows that [Huffman s] Id. at 440. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s order. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials 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.
