Filed: May 20, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-5217 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CALVIN JERMANE AUDU, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:99-cr-00106-1) Submitted: April 28, 2010 Decided: May 20, 2010 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lou Newberger, Federal P
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-5217 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CALVIN JERMANE AUDU, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:99-cr-00106-1) Submitted: April 28, 2010 Decided: May 20, 2010 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Pu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-5217
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CALVIN JERMANE AUDU,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (3:99-cr-00106-1)
Submitted: April 28, 2010 Decided: May 20, 2010
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, R. Gregory McVey,
Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Calvin Jermane Audu appeals the district court’s
judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to
six months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Audu alleges that his
sentence is plainly unreasonable because the district court
failed to calculate the advisory policy statement range and
failed to solicit argument from the parties about the sentence.
For the following reasons, we affirm.
This court will affirm a sentence imposed after
revocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed
statutory range and not plainly unreasonable. United States v.
Crudup,
461 F.3d 433, 437-39 (4th Cir. 2006). In making this
determination, we first consider whether the sentence is
unreasonable.
Id. at 438. “This initial inquiry takes a more
‘deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the
exercise of discretion’ than reasonableness review for
[G]uidelines sentences.” United States v. Moulden,
478 F.3d
652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting
Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439).
To determine whether the sentence is unreasonable, we
generally follow the procedural and substantive considerations
employed in reviewing original sentences.
Crudup, 461 F.3d at
438-39; see United States v. Finley,
531 F.3d 288, 294 (4th Cir.
2008) (“In applying the ‘plainly unreasonable’ standard, we
first determine, using the instructions given in Gall [v. United
2
States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)], whether a sentence is
‘unreasonable.’”). Here, the district court committed
procedural error when, at least on the face of the record before
us, it does not appear that either the court or the probation
officer calculated the advisory policy statement sentencing
range. See
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
Upon finding this procedural error, our next step
under Crudup is to determine whether the sentence is “plainly
unreasonable,” under the definition of “plain” used in
plain-error analysis.
Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. “For a sentence
to be plainly unreasonable . . . it must run afoul of clearly
settled law.” United States v. Thompson,
595 F.3d 544, 548 (4th
Cir. 2010). Because the district court’s obligation to
calculate the advisory policy statement sentencing range has
been settled since 2007, see
Moulden, 478 F.3d at 656-57, we
conclude that its failure to do so is plainly unreasonable.
However, because Audu has not preserved this issue, it
is subject to plain error review. Under the plain error
standard, the defendant must show that an error was made, is
plain, and affects the defendant’s substantial rights. United
States v. Massenburg,
564 F.3d 337, 342-43 (4th Cir. 2009).
Because the sentence imposed by the district court was
ultimately within the advisory policy statement range and was
3
within the statutory maximum, we find that the error does not
affect Audu’s substantial rights.
Finally, we conclude that, contrary to Audu’s
assertion, he was given ample opportunity to argue for a
specific sentence, but did not do so. Therefore, we affirm the
district court’s revocation of supervised release and the
six-month sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4