Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31 views

    United States v. Michael Casteen, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a summary of a United States Court of Appeals case. It discusses the appeal of Michael Casteen's sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release. The district court had sentenced Casteen to 60 months in prison, the statutory maximum. The appellate court affirmed this sentence, finding that district courts have broad discretion to impose sentences up to the statutory maximum for supervised release violations. The district court properly considered the sentencing factors and Casteen's history of substance abuse. Therefore, the appellate court determined that Casteen's sentence was not substantively unreasonable.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Michael Casteen, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    31 views4 pages
    This document is a summary of a United States Court of Appeals case. It discusses the appeal of Michael Casteen's sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release. The district court had sentenced Casteen to 60 months in prison, the statutory maximum. The appellate court affirmed this sentence, finding that district courts have broad discretion to impose sentences up to the statutory maximum for supervised release violations. The district court properly considered the sentencing factors and Casteen's history of substance abuse. Therefore, the appellate court determined that Casteen's sentence was not substantively unreasonable.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-05-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-4681

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a summary of a United States Court of Appeals case. It discusses the appeal of Michael Casteen's sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release. The district court had sentenced Casteen to 60 months in prison, the statutory maximum. The appellate court affirmed this sentence, finding that district courts have broad discretion to impose sentences up to the statutory maximum for supervised release violations. The district court properly considered the sentencing factors and Casteen's history of substance abuse. Therefore, the appellate court determined that Casteen's sentence was not substantively unreasonable.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    31 views4 pages

    United States v. Michael Casteen, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a summary of a United States Court of Appeals case. It discusses the appeal of Michael Casteen's sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release. The district court had sentenced Casteen to 60 months in prison, the statutory maximum. The appellate court affirmed this sentence, finding that district courts have broad discretion to impose sentences up to the statutory maximum for supervised release violations. The district court properly considered the sentencing factors and Casteen's history of substance abuse. Therefore, the appellate court determined that Casteen's sentence was not substantively unreasonable.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 15-4681

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    MICHAEL WAYNE CASTEEN,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (7:05-cr-00029-F-2)

    Submitted:

    May 18, 2016

    Decided:

    May 20, 2016

    Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac,


    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellant.
    John Stuart Bruce, Acting 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:
    Michael Casteen appeals the district courts order imposing
    a 60month prison sentence upon revoking his supervised release.
    On appeal, he claims that his sentence to the statutory maximum
    is

    substantively

    than

    necessary

    plainly
    to

    unreasonable

    satisfy

    the

    because

    purposes

    of

    it

    was

    greater

    sentencing.

    We

    affirm.
    We will not disturb a district courts revocation sentence
    unless it falls outside the statutory maximum or is otherwise
    plainly unreasonable.

    United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370,

    373 (4th Cir.) (citing United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433,
    437 (4th Cir.2006)), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 136 S.Ct. 494
    (2015).

    Only if the revocation sentence is unreasonable must we

    assess whether it is plainly so.

    Id. (citing United States v.

    Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir.2007)).

    In determining

    whether a revocation sentence is unreasonable, we are informed


    by the same procedural and substantive considerations that guide
    our

    review

    deferential

    of

    original

    appellate

    sentences

    posture.

    but

    Id.

    we

    strike

    (citations

    and

    more

    internal

    quotation marks omitted).


    A district court retains broad discretion to ... impose a
    term

    of

    imprisonment

    up

    to

    the

    statutory

    maximum.

    (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

    Id.

    In exercising

    such discretion, the district court is guided by the Chapter


    2

    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).
    738 F.3d 638, 641 (4th Cir. 2013).

    United States v. Webb,


    Chapter Seven instructs

    that, in fashioning a revocation sentence, the court should


    sanction primarily the defendants breach of trust, while taking
    into

    account,

    to

    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)).
    Although 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.
    listed

    in

    3553(a)(2)(A)

    are

    Id.

    Moreover, the factors

    intertwined

    with

    the

    factors

    courts are expressly authorized to consider under 3583(e).


    Id. (citations omitted).

    Thus, although a district court may

    not

    sentence

    impose

    seriousness
    sentence

    revocation

    of

    to

    the

    promote

    releasees
    respect

    based

    violation
    for

    the

    predominately

    on

    the

    for

    the

    or

    the

    need

    law

    and

    provide

    just

    punishment . . . mere reference to such considerations does not


    render

    revocation

    sentence

    procedurally

    unreasonable

    when

    those factors are relevant to, and considered in conjunction


    with, the enumerated 3553(a) factors.
    3

    Id. at 642 (citation

    omitted); see USSG ch. 7, pt. A(3)(B) (punishing new criminal


    conduct is not the primary goal of a revocation sentence, but
    the

    nature

    of

    the

    conduct

    leading

    to

    the

    revocation

    [is]

    considered in measuring the extent of the breach of trust).


    Here, the district court properly considered the Chapter 7
    policy statements as well as the relevant 3553(a) factors.
    The

    court

    also

    appropriately

    considered

    struggles with substance abuse.


    that

    the

    unreasonable.
    order.
    legal
    before

    sentence

    admitted

    On these facts, we cannot say

    imposed

    Accordingly,

    Casteens

    was

    we

    affirm

    substantively
    the

    plainly

    district

    courts

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and


    contentions
    this

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like