US v. Casey Burnett, No. 14-4274 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4274 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. CASEY SEON BURNETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (4:99-cr-00006-CMC-5) Submitted: August 14, 2014 Decided: August 28, 2014 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Katherine E. Evatt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Alfred W. Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Casey Seon Burnett pleaded guilty to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2012), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012). The district court sentenced Burnett to a total of 200 months of imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release. Following his release, Burnett admitted violating the terms of his supervised release, and the district court revoked Burnett s supervised release and sentenced him to eleven months of imprisonment. the court expressed concern During the revocation hearing, that Burnett would not receive adequate long-term drug treatment outside of prison and relied on Burnett s need for medical care in explaining its sentence. Burnett has appealed, arguing that the sentence imposed upon him is procedurally improperly unreasonable considered incarcerated. his because need for the district court drug treatment while We hold that although the district court erred in considering Burnett s rehabilitative needs, the error did not affect Burnett s substantive rights. We review a sentence We therefore affirm. imposed as a result of a supervised release violation to determine whether the sentence was plainly unreasonable, generally following the procedural and substantive sentences. considerations employed in reviewing original United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2 2006). Moreover, 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. § 3583 (2012) and 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. Id. at 439 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). [18 U.S.C.] Section 3582(a) [(2012)] precludes sentencing courts from imposing or lengthening a prison term to promote an offender s rehabilitation. Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382, 2391 (2011); see also United States v. Bennett, 698 F.3d 194, 197-98 (4th Cir. 2012) (court may not consider need for rehabilitation in imposing revocation sentence), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1506 (2013). Here, Burnett did not object at the revocation hearing on the grounds asserted here, and we therefore review this issue for plain error. Bennett, 698 F.3d at 199. To establish plain error, Burnett must demonstrate that (1) district the (3) the error court affected erred, his (2) the substantial error was rights. plain, Id. at (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993)). and 200 Even if all three prongs are met, we have discretion to deny relief, particularly when doing so would not result in a miscarriage of justice. Id. (quoting United States v. Robinson, 627 F.3d 941, 954 (4th Cir. 2010)). 3 In Bennett, we held that it is procedural error to consider rehabilitative needs in sentencing a defendant to a term of imprisonment at a revocation hearing. at 200. Bennett, 698 F.3d The district court in that case erred by improperly considering the defendant s needs for intensive substance abuse treatment. sentence Id. Despite because the the error, procedural we error affirmed did not Bennett s affect the defendant s substantial rights by influencing the outcome of the sentencing Bennett s proceeding. criminal acts Id. while Other under factors, supervised such as release, provided independent justification for the sentence. Id. at 201. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that in the case at hand the district court committed procedural error by considering Burnett s determining his sentence. error did Bennett, not affect for drug treatment in We nonetheless affirm because the Burnett s consideration need of substantial Burnett s rights. rehabilitative As in needs constituted only a minor fragment of the court's reasoning. Bennett, 698 F.3d at 201. The district court properly relied on other factors, like the need to promote respect for the law and provide just punishment, in sentencing Burnett to eleven months incarceration. Affirming Burnett s sentence would therefore not 4 affect his substantial rights, nor would it result in a miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also deny Burnett s motion to file a pro se reply brief. 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 in 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.
