US v. Shawn Greene, No. 14-4170 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4170 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHAWN PATRICK GREENE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:09-cr-00089-F-1) Submitted: October 20, 2014 Before GREGORY Circuit Judge. and DIAZ, Decided: Circuit Judges, October 28, 2014 and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shawn sentence Patrick imposed following supervised release. bases for his Greene appeals the the revocation twenty-four-month of his term of Before this court, Greene asserts several contention substantively unreasonable. that this sentence is plainly For the reasons that follow, we reject his arguments and affirm the revocation judgment. A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release. United States v. A Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). revocation sentence that is both within the applicable statutory maximum and not plainly unreasonable will be affirmed on appeal. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437-38 (4th Cir. 2006). In determining whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we first assess the sentence for reasonableness, utilizing the procedural and substantive considerations employed in evaluating an original criminal sentence. Id. at 438. A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court has considered both the policy statements contained in Chapter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) § 3583(e) (2012). (2012) factors Id. at 439. identified in 18 U.S.C. The district court must also explain the chosen sentence, although this explanation need not 2 be as detailed sentence. Cir. or specific as is required for an original United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th 2010). A sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court states a proper basis for concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. If, after considering the above, we decide that the sentence is reasonable, we will affirm. find the sentence to be Id. at 439. procedurally or Only if we substantively unreasonable will we evaluate whether it is plainly so. Against these principles, Greene s sentence is reasonable. we readily Id. conclude that The sentence is within the two-year statutory maximum authorized for the underlying Class C felony offense that resulted in the supervised release order. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 472, 3559(a)(3), 3583(e)(3) (2012). Our review of the record confirms that the district court considered the advisory policy statement range of five to eleven months imprisonment, the calculation of which was not disputed in the district court and is not challenged on appeal, and heard the parties arguments regarding the appropriate sentence to be imposed. Furthermore, the district court drew upon the § 3553(a) factors enumerated in § 3583(e) in sentencing Greene. The record makes patently clear 3 that, despite the district court s prior lenient treatment, Greene simply could not (or would not) abide by the terms of his supervised release in that he frequently smoked marijuana. There is no doubt that Greene s repeated and unabated drug use was at the cornerstone of the district court s decision sentence in case. this to We impose do not the find statutory persuasive maximum Greene s contention that the sentence is excessive because he is unable to manage his marijuana endanger the public. imposition of substantively addiction and his conduct did not See Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440 (holding that statutory maximum term of imprisonment reasonable, given that the district was court expressly relied on defendant s admitted pattern of violating numerous conditions of his supervised release[,] despite several extensions of leniency by the district court). Greene s next contention that a two-year sentence is greater than necessary to allow Greene to accept that he has a serious drug problem is likewise unavailing. To the contrary, the probation office did everything in its power to help Greene conquer his addiction without seeking an additional term of incarceration, but it was incumbent upon Greene to avail himself of the treatment options secured for and provided to him. he simply would not do, thus confirming lengthy term of incarceration. 4 the necessity This of a Finally, Greene maintains that the two-year sentence is contrary to one of the purposes of imposing a revocation sentence: to provide the defendant with education or vocational training. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D). Greene points out that serving a two-year prison term will waylay his efforts to graduate from a technical college. But the revocation sentence is designed to punish the defendant s failure to abide by the terms of ( [T]he his supervised sentence imposed release, upon Crudup, revocation 461 F.3d [is] at intended 438 to sanction the violator for failing to abide by the conditions of the court-ordered supervision. (second alteration in original) (quoting U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ch. 7, pt. A, introductory cmt. 3(b))), and the district court s comments make plain that it chose the twenty-four-month sentence to sanction Greene s substantial breach of the trust and leniency that the court previously afforded him. Accordingly, we affirm the revocation judgment. 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 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.
