US v. Retsyn Owens, No. 14-4018 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4018 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RETSYN DESHAWN OWENS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (2:13-cr-00291-1) Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 1, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Joshua C. Hanks, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Retsyn Deshawn Owens appeals the district court s judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-four months imprisonment. Owens challenges sentence, arguing that it is plainly unreasonable. his We affirm. A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release. States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). United Accordingly, in examining a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release, we take[] a more deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than reasonableness review for guidelines 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 first consider unless we find the United States v. Crudup, In reviewing a revocation whether the sentence is unreasonable, following the same general principles we apply to our review of original sentences. Id. at 438. Only if we find a sentence to be procedurally or substantively unreasonable will we determine whether the sentence is plainly so. A revocation sentence is procedurally Id. at 439. reasonable if the district court has considered both the applicable 18 U.S.C. 2 § 3553(a) (2012) factors and the policy statements contained in Chapter Seven of the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. 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. (4th Cir. 2010). reasonable if concluding that imposed. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 A the revocation district the court defendant sentence states should a is substantively proper receive basis the for sentence Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. We cannot conclude that Owens twenty-four-month sentence is unreasonable, much less plainly so. Our review of the record reveals that the district court considered relevant § 3553(a) factors, including Owens history of recidivism, his apparent lack of respect for the law, and the need to protect the public and deter others from engaging in similar conduct. Moreover, the court did not err by ordering that Owens revocation sentence run consecutively to the 151-month sentence imposed on his new criminal conviction, sanctioned in the Guidelines. as that practice is See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.3(f), p.s. (2013). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument 3 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 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.
