Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 13-4846
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (7:08-cr-00462-HMH-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Bryan Devonar Tate appeals the district courts order
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to sixteen
months imprisonment.
district
court
abused
its
discretion
by
revoking
Tates
After conducting
upon
revocation
of
supervised
release.
examining
revocation
sentence,
we
United
Accordingly,
take[]
more
of
discretion
[G]uidelines sentences.
than
reasonableness
review
affirm
revocation
for
sentence
that
falls
within
We
the
unreasonable.
Cir. 2006).
Only
if
substantively
we
find
unreasonable
if
it
sentence
will
to
we
afoul
procedurally
determine
Id. at 439.
run[s]
be
of
Id. at
whether
or
the
A sentence is plainly
clearly
settled
law.
United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 548 (4th Cir. 2010).
A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if,
among other factors, the court provides a sufficient explanation
for
its
chosen
sentence.
Id.
at
547.
In
explaining
its
through
particularly
United
[18
when
States
v.
Powell,
quotation
defendant
or
a
imposing
(internal
imposing
U.S.C.]
marks
prosecutor
different
3553(a)s
650
subsection,
within-Guidelines
F.3d
388,
omitted).
presents
sentence
every
than
395
(4th
sentence.
Cir.
2011)
However,
[w]here
the
nonfrivolous
reasons
for
that
set
forth
in
the
and
States
explain
v.
why
Carter,
he
564
has
F.3d
rejected
325,
328
those
(4th
arguments.
Cir.
2009)
its
reason
for
doing
(emphasis in original).
so.
Thompson,
595
F.3d
at
547
Id. at
548.
Tate preserved his challenge to the adequacy of the
district courts explanation by drawing arguments from 3553
for a sentence different than the one ultimately imposed by the
district court.
Cir. 2010).
sufficient
explanation
renders
procedurally unreasonable.
Tates
sentence
plainly
court did not listen to and consider the parties arguments, the
courts
omission
of
any
explanation
sufficient
perception
appellate
of
fair
review,
explanation
is
sentencing
Gall v.
and
United
for
its
chosen
sentence
to
allow
States,
552
promote
for
the
meaningful
U.S.
38,
50
This
move
in
representation.
this
and
materials
legal
before
for
leave
to
withdraw
from
court
contentions
are
adequately
this
and
argument
decisional process.
court
presented
would
not
in
the
aid
the