United States of America v. Joseph Edward Ramey

Abingdon, Virginia, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant in a revocation of supervised release procediing.

“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of
supervised release. [We] will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory
maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Patterson, 957 F.3d 426, 436 (4th Cir. 2020). Before deciding “whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, [we] must first determine whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable,” id., applying “the same procedural and substantive considerations that guide our review of original sentences” but taking “a more deferential appellate posture than we do when reviewing original sentences,” United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015) (citation modified). “[I]f a sentence is either procedurally or substantively unreasonable,” we then address “whether the sentence is plainly nreasonable—that is, whether the unreasonableness is clear or obvious.” Patterson, 957 F.3d at 437 (citation modified). “A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court adequately explains the chosen sentence after considering the Sentencing Guidelines’ nonbinding Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Coston, 964 F.3d 289, 297 (4th Cir. 2020) (citation modified); see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (listing applicable factors). “[A]lthough the court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a post-conviction sentence, it still must provide a statement of reasons for the
sentence imposed.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 208 (4th Cir. 2017) (citation
modified). The district court must, at a minimum, explain the sentence sufficiently to
permit meaningful appellate review, “with the assurance that the court considered any potentially meritorious arguments raised by [the defendant] with regard to his sentencing.”
United States v. Gibbs, 897 F.3d 199, 205 (4th Cir. 2018) (citation modified). “A
revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if, in light of the totality of the
circumstances, the court states an appropriate basis for concluding that the defendant
should receive the sentence imposed.” Coston, 964 F.3d at 297 (citation modified).

The District Court revoked the Defendant's supervised release and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release.

Affirmed.