United States v. David Henderson
691 F. App'x 73
4th Cir.2017Background
- David Henderson admitted violating supervised release by absconding, leaving the district without permission, and committing new criminal conduct.
- The district court found a Grade B violation and Criminal History Category VI, producing a Chapter 7 policy-statement range of 21–24 months under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 7B1.4.
- Henderson did not object to the guideline calculations at the revocation hearing but asked for continued release based on support system and medical diagnosis.
- The district court revoked supervised release and sentenced Henderson to 24 months’ imprisonment (within the guideline range).
- On appeal Henderson argued (1) the court erred by applying Grade B instead of Grade C, and (2) the court abused its discretion by not giving adequate weight to his support system and medical condition.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed for plain error as to the grade issue and for abuse of discretion as to the sentence, and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Henderson was sentenced under incorrect violation grade (B vs C) | Henderson: district court misapplied grade; should be Grade C | Government: district court's grading was correct; Henderson failed to preserve the issue | Court: reviewed for plain error; Henderson failed to show plain error affecting substantial rights; no relief granted |
| Whether district court abused discretion by not adequately weighing support system and medical diagnosis | Henderson: court gave insufficient weight to mitigation and medical condition | Government: court considered arguments and properly exercised broad discretion under Chapter 7 and §§ 3553(a), 3583(e) | Court: no abuse of discretion; sentence within policy range presumed reasonable and upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Lemon v. United States, 777 F.3d 170 (4th Cir.) (plain-error review requires showing an error that is clear or obvious and affects substantial rights)
- Webb v. United States, 738 F.3d 638 (4th Cir.) (district court has broad discretion in imposing revocation sentences; Chapter 7 and §§ 3553(a), 3583(e) guide revocation sentences)
- Padgett v. United States, 788 F.3d 370 (4th Cir.) (standard for revocation-sentence review; deferential appellate posture)
- Hare v. United States, 820 F.3d 93 (4th Cir.) (representation and pro se briefing principles where defendant is represented)
- Penniegraft v. United States, 641 F.3d 566 (4th Cir.) (procedural guidance on pro se filings when counsel represents the defendant)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S.) (procedures for counsel to withdraw when appellate brief raises no nonfrivolous issues)