United States v. Austin Webb, Jr.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25223
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Webb pleaded guilty in 2006 to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and received an 80-month sentence plus supervised release.
- Amendment 706 reduced his guidelines sentence; he began supervised release in August 2010.
- Within a year, Webb was arrested for marijuana offenses and tested positive for marijuana, leading to a Grade C violation and advisement for six months.
- In 2011-2012, Webb committed controlled cocaine base purchases; he was later indicted and pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 28+ grams of crack cocaine.
- In October 2012, at revocation sentencing, the district court found a Grade A violation and sentenced Webb to 32 months, consecutive to other sentences, based on Chapter Seven and § 3583(e) factors.
- Webb did not object to the revocation sentence and appealed, arguing the sentence was plainly unreasonable due to reliance on statutorily prohibited factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred by referencing §3553(a)(2)(A) factors in a revocation sentence | Webb argues Crudup forbids using §3553(a)(2)(A) factors for revocation. | Webb's argument is that only enumerated §3583(e) factors may be used and §3553(a)(2)(A) cannot be relied upon separately. | No reversible error; reference to related §3553(a) factors permissible when related to §3583(e) factors. |
| Whether any error was plain or affected substantial rights requiring relief | If error occurred, it was plain and affected the outcome. | Any error was not plain or did not affect substantial rights; sentence near bottom of range is presumptively reasonable. | No plain error; Webb failed to show the error affected substantial rights or the sentence would have been lower. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir. 2006) (revocation sentence cannot be based on omitted §3553(a)(2)(A) considerations)
- United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2010) (district court has broad discretion in revocation sentencing)
- United States v. Hargrove, 625 F.3d 170 (4th Cir. 2010) (plain error review for revocation sentences)
- United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2006) (reference to §3553(a) factors permissible when related to §3583(e) factors)
- United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178 (4th Cir. 2007) (revocation sentence near bottom of range is presumptively reasonable)