United States v. Robert Dipasalegne
705 F. App'x 162
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Robert Dipasalegne appealed a 14-month prison term and 36 months supervised release imposed after revocation of his supervised release.
- Appellant’s counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious issues but raised two sentencing challenges: (1) the district court relied impermissibly on the seriousness of the offense and the need to promote respect for the law; and (2) the sentence was greater than necessary given claimed early rehabilitation.
- Dipasalegne was informed of his right to file a pro se brief but did not. The Government did not file a response.
- The district court identified several § 3553(a) factors (including deterrence, protecting the public, and respect for the law) and imposed a within-Guidelines revocation sentence.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed for procedural and substantive reasonableness under the usual standards for revocation sentences and applied the ‘‘plainly unreasonable’’ standard for affirmance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the revocation sentence was plainly unreasonable because the court relied impermissibly on the seriousness of the offense and the need to promote respect for the law | Counsel argued the district court cited impermissible § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors too heavily | Court considered the omitted factors only as intertwined with permissible § 3553(a) factors (deterrence, public protection, offense nature, history) | Affirmed — references to seriousness/respect did not make the sentence procedurally unreasonable where tied to proper § 3553(a) factors |
| Whether the 14-month term was greater than necessary given Dipasalegne’s asserted early rehabilitation | Counsel contended defendant showed nascent rehabilitation and acceptance, so a shorter term would suffice | Record showed little real rehabilitation or cessation of drug use; court found deterrence and incapacitation needed | Affirmed — defendant failed to rebut presumption of substantive reasonableness for a within-range sentence |
| Whether the district court adequately considered applicable revocation-sentencing factors and explained the sentence | Counsel suggested the court’s explanation was too brief and relied on improper motives | Court identified and relied on permissible factors and its statements in context showed consideration of nature, history, deterrence, and protection | Affirmed — procedural and substantive review satisfied |
| Whether appellate counsel complied with Anders procedure and whether any meritorious issues exist | Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief noting no meritorious issue but raising the above sentencing questions | Fourth Circuit reviewed the full record consistent with Anders and found no meritorious issues; Government did not oppose | Affirmed — no meritorious appeal; counsel must notify defendant of cert petition rights |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638 (4th Cir.) (explains limits on using seriousness/promote-respect in revocation sentences)
- United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370 (4th Cir.) (presumption of reasonableness for within-policy-statement revocation sentences)
- United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir.) (standards for procedural and substantive reasonableness review)
- United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544 (4th Cir.) (district court may rely on statements made during sentencing hearing to show reasoning)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for counsel filing a brief asserting no meritorious appeal)