US v. Shawnathon Jeter, No. 13-4923 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4923 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. SHAWNATHON JETER, a/k/a Shawn, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (7:07-cr-00711-MGL-24) Submitted: September 11, 2014 Decided: October 1, 2014 Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lora Blanchard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, E. Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shawnathon Jeter appeals from his twenty-four month sentence imposed pursuant to the revocation of his supervised release. On reasonableness appeal, of his Jeter challenges sentence, arguing court s explanation was insufficient. * In supervised examining release, a we sentence take[] that procedural the district We affirm. imposed a the more upon revocation deferential of 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). that falls within the We will affirm a revocation sentence statutory maximum, sentence to be plainly unreasonable. 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). sentence, we unreasonable, must first using the review original sentences. determine same unless we find the United States v. Crudup, In reviewing a revocation whether general Id. at 438. the sentence is analysis employed to Only if we find a sentence to be procedurally or substantively unreasonable will we determine whether the sentence is plainly so. * Id. at 439. Jeter s counsel originally filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). However, after our independent review of the record, we ordered counsel to file a merits brief. 2 A revocation 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 Chapter Seven of Seven the Guidelines. instructs that, Crudup, in 461 F.3d fashioning a at 440. revocation sentence, 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. 7, pt. A(3)(b) (2012). further directs section 3553(a)(1), U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ch. The statute governing supervised release courts to consider (a)(2)(B), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7). factors (a)(2)(C), enumerated (a)(2)(D), in (a)(4), 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012). The cross-referenced § 3553(a) factors include (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant ; (2) the need for the sentence imposed . . . to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, to protect the public provide the from further defendant crimes with of needed the defendant, educational or and to vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner ; (3) the sentencing range established by the Guidelines; Sentencing (4) the Commission; pertinent (5) the policy need to statements avoid of the unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records who 3 have been found guilty of similar conduct ; and (6) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense. § 3582 (2012). Absent from these enumerated 18 U.S.C. factors is § 3553(a)(2)(A), which requires district courts to consider the need for the imposed sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense. The district court also must provide an explanation of its chosen sentence, although this explanation need not be as detailed or specific as is required for an original sentence. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). When imposing a revocation sentence, a district court should criminal conduct supporting the revocation of his supervised release. Crudup, 461 avoid F.3d at punishing 437-38 a defendant (holding that, for in fashioning supervised release sentences, Chapter Seven policy statements make clear that primary goal is not to punish new criminal conduct but rather to penalize defendant s failure to comply with court-ordered terms of supervision); USSG ch. 7, pt. A(3)(b). However, sentence while based a district court predominately may on not the impose a seriousness revocation of the releasee s violation or the need for the sentence to promote respect for the law and provide just punishment, mere reference to such considerations does not render a revocation sentence 4 procedurally unreasonable when those factors are relevant to, and considered in conjunction with, the enumerated § 3553(a) factors. 2013). See United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir. Moreover, 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 omitted). Because Jeter argued for a sentence below the advisory Guidelines range, he preserved an argument of procedural error in failing to address his arguments explanation of his sentence. and provide a proper See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578 (4th Cir. 2010). Preserved claims are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and if this court finds abuse, reversal is required unless the error was harmless. Id. at 576. Here, the court imposed a twenty-four-month sentence, finding that such a sentence reflected the seriousness of the offense, promoted respect for the law, provided punishment, and afforded adequate deterrence. adequate The court also recognized that Jeter had not met his short-term goals the last time he was released. While the district court s discussion was brief, we find that this case is governed by Webb, where we held that consideration of the omitted § 3553(a) factors was appropriate, so long as the discussion factors was connected with enumerated factors. 5 of those As in this case, the discussion in Webb was brief and conclusory and was mostly a listing of the factors, some enumerated and some omitted, that were considered. However, the court recognized Jeter s failure to comply with the conditions of his supervised release; this was not a complex case; and Jeter was sentenced at the bottom of his Guidelines range. Accordingly, we affirm Jeter s sentence. 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.
