US v. Renauld Curtis, No. 14-4280 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4280 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RENAULD SYLVESTER CURTIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:04-cr-00050-BR-1) Submitted: September 26, 2014 Decided: October 16, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Phillip A. Rubin, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Renauld Sylvester Curtis appeals the district court s judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to eighteen months imprisonment. sentence is procedurally both Curtis and contends substantively that his unreasonable because the court considered an impermissible sentencing factor. Because Curtis did not raise this issue in the district court, review is for plain error. 640 (4th Cir. 2013). United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, Under plain error review, Curtis must show that (1) the court erred, (2) the error was clear and obvious, and (3) the error affected his substantial rights. 41. Id. at 640- Even if Curtis meets his burden, we retain discretion to recognize the seriously error and affect[s] reputation of will the judicial deny relief fairness, proceedings. quotation marks omitted). unless the integrity Id. at or 641 error public (internal Finding no error, we affirm. A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release. at 640. We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release maximum and not Crudup, 461 F.3d whether a court Webb, 738 F.3d if is within the plainly 433, (4th applicable unreasonable. revocation first it assesses 438 sentence the Cir. is 2 2006). plainly sentence United for In statutory States v. determining unreasonable, this unreasonableness, following the procedural and substantive considerations that are at issue during its review of original sentences. Id. at 438- 39. deferential In this initial inquiry, we take a more 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). In exercising its discretion, the district court is guided by the Chapter Seven policy statements in the federal Guidelines manual, as well as the statutory factors applicable to revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e). Webb, 738 F.3d fashioning a at 641. revocation Chapter sentence, Seven the instructs court that, should in 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. Id. (quoting U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ch. 7, pt. A(3)(b) (2012)). In determining the length of a sentence imposed upon revocation requires a of supervised sentencing release, court to 18 U.S.C. consider factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). all § 3583(e) but two (2012) of the One of the excluded factors is the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide 3 just punishment for the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. A supervised revocation reasonable procedurally release if district the sentence court is properly calculates the Guidelines Chapter 7 advisory policy statement range and explains the sentence adequately after considering the policy statements and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors it is permitted to consider in a supervised release revocation case. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012); United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. sentence states is a substantively proper basis receive the sentence Crudup, 461 F.3d reasonable for concluding imposed, at if 440. up to Only the the the if a A revocation district defendant statutory sentence court should maximum. is found procedurally or substantively unreasonable will we then decide whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. Id. at 439. A sentence is plainly unreasonable if it is clearly or obviously unreasonable. Id. We have recognized that [a]lthough § 3583(e) enumerates the factors a district court should consider when formulating a revocation sentence, it does not expressly prohibit a court from referencing other relevant factors omitted from the statute. Webb, 738 F.3d at 641. does revocation not base a sentence 4 As long as a court predominately on the § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors, mere reference to such considerations does not render a revocation sentence procedurally unreasonable when those factors are relevant to, and considered conjunction with, the enumerated § 3553(a) factors. in Id. at 642. We conclude that the district court imposed the eighteen month sentence predominately on permitted factors and referenced respect for the law in conjunction with the need to sanction Curtis for his breach of trust and to deter him and others from violating conditions of release in the future. See Webb, 738 F.3d at 642 (references to omitted sentencing factors were related to references to permissible sentencing factors). Accordingly, we find no procedural or substantive error with the sentence. Even if there was error, Curtis has not shown that the district court would have imposed a sentence below the low end of the Chapter Seven Guidelines sentence. We affirm the district court s judgment. 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 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.