United States v. Anthony Bost, 705 F. App'x 141

Background

Defendant Anthony Leon Bost, while on federal supervised release, participated in armed bank robbery(s), firearm offenses, and a Hobbs Act conspiracy; he pled guilty and admitted the supervised-release violation.
District court sentenced Bost to 259 months’ imprisonment for the underlying offenses and revoked supervised release, adding a consecutive 24-month term for the revocation.
The court ordered restitution to victims, including Wells Fargo, expressly limited to the victims’ actual loss “less any amount recovered by law enforcement.”
On appeal Bost argued (1) the restitution order required repayment to Wells Fargo for funds recovered by police, and (2) his supervised-release revocation sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
The Fourth Circuit reviewed the restitution order for abuse of discretion and revocation sentencing under a deferential "not plainly unreasonable" standard and affirmed in all respects.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Restitution—whether court ordered repayment of money recovered by law enforcement	Bost: district court ordered him to repay Wells Fargo for amounts recovered by police	Government: order limited restitution to victims’ actual loss less amounts recovered by law enforcement	Affirmed—no abuse of discretion; order explicitly reduced restitution by amounts recovered by law enforcement
Procedural reasonableness of revocation sentence—whether court failed to consider §3553(a) factors	Bost: court did not recite all §3553(a) factors and failed to address sentencing disparities	Government: court discussed key §3553(a) factors (public protection, violations history, offense circumstances) and was not required to "robotically" list every factor	Affirmed—procedurally sound; adequate explanation of reasons and factors considered
Procedural reasonableness—failure to reference USSG §5G1.3 when ordering consecutive sentence	Bost: court erred by not addressing §5G1.3 before imposing consecutive revocation term	Government: court considered the relevant circumstances (undischarged term length, time served) and commentary favors consecutive sentence	Affirmed—no procedural error; even if error, harmless given court’s rejection of a concurrent term and Guidelines' recommendation
Substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence	Bost: sentence excessive because codefendant got concurrent revocation, state charges dismissed, and underlying 259-month sentence already punished the conduct	Government: revocation sentence targets breach of supervision and repeated violations; differences in conduct justify disparity	Affirmed—sentence within policy-range presumption; district court reasonably considered violence, additional robbery, and repeated breaches

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Freeman, 741 F.3d 426 (4th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for restitution abuse of discretion)
United States v. Hanna, 630 F.3d 505 (7th Cir. 2010) (affirming restitution order limited by law-enforcement recoveries)
United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638 (4th Cir. 2013) (deferential review for supervised-release revocation sentences)
United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652 (4th Cir. 2007) (revocation sentencing considerations and purpose)
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir. 2006) (applying procedural and substantive considerations from original-sentence review to revocations)
United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 2015) (admission of violation and standard for revocation)
United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2010) (statement-of-reasons requirement for revocation sentences)
United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339 (4th Cir. 2006) (no requirement to mechanically list every §3553(a) factor)
United States v. Hall, 632 F.3d 331 (6th Cir. 2011) (no reversible error for not explicitly citing USSG §5G1.3 when factors are otherwise considered)
United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Gomez, 690 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2012) (harmless-error standard in sentencing context)
United States v. Brack, 651 F.3d 388 (4th Cir. 2011) (weight of Guidelines policy statements and commentary)