Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 14-4762
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:11-cr-00213-F-4)
Argued:
Decided:
Judge
PER CURIAM:
Onrey
Townes
appeals
the
twenty-one-month
sentence
the
Townes
challenges
the
sentence
as
procedurally
first
on
appeared
April
before
24,
2012,
the
district
court
after
pleading
guilty
for
to
plea
twelve
agreement,
months
and
supervised release.
the
one
district
day
in
court
prison
sentenced
and
three
Townes
to
years
of
on July 3, 2012.
On March 26, 2014, United States Probation Officer Dewayne
Smith
petitioned
for
the
revocation
of
Towness
supervised
Smith explained
that, during the early morning hours of March 15, 2014, Townes
entered a home through a bathroom window, woke a young female
3
resident, and fled when the girl called for her parents.
Smith
minutes
later
and
that
Townes
only
abandoned
his
efforts when one of the people inside the home discovered him.
In
response
to
these
incidents,
the
Wilson
County
Police
had
violated
the
terms
his
supervised
release
by
district
court
held
hearing
on
the
petition
for
As
health
program
as
directed,
Townes
conceded
that
his
Townes
in
criminal
conductboth
burglary
and
attempted
it
had
considered
the
policy
statements
on
revocation
[the]
relevant
3553(a).
J.A.
factors
21.
listed
Prior
to
in
18
United
imposing
the
States
sentence,
Code
the
his
documented
schizophrenia;
(3)
struggles
his
recent
with
bipolar
engagement
and
disorder
commitment
and
to
(6)
his
license.
plans
to
earn
his
GED
and
commercial
drivers
for a sentence below the advisory range provided under the U.S.
Sentencing
Guidelines
revocations.
The
Manuals
district
court
policy
did
table
not
applicable
explicitly
to
address
constituted
because
Townes
most
serious
fell
within
violation
criminal
and
explained
history
that,
category
II,
twenty-four-month
sentencethe
applicable
statutory
County,
Townes
had
returned
to
one
of
the
subject
The Government
his
initial
term
of
imprisonment
and
that
his
recent
his
supervised
release.
The
district
court
then
revoked
United
A revocation
determine
if
sentence
this
Court
must
unreasonable at all.
546 (4th Cir. 2010).
is
plainly
unreasonable,
we
determine
whether
the
sentence
is
substantively unreasonable.
A sentence
statement
of
reasons
for
the
sentence
imposed.
sentence
is
substantively
7
unreasonable
if
A
the
Only
if
unreasonable
a
do
sentence
we
is
proceed
procedurally
to
the
second
or
substantively
step:
determining
Id. at 439.
We agree.
As this Court
thwart
appellate
review
Government
light
on
argues
its
of
any
within-range
Id.
that
reasoning
the
when
district
it
court
noted,
shed
prior
to
between
the
district
courts
declaration
that
Towness
to
the
deny
district
Towness
court
request
adequately
for
explained
sentence
its
below
the
advisory range.
We are unpersuaded by the Governments contentions.
Were
Most
assuredly,
robotically
tick
district
through
court
is
3553(a)s
not
required
every
to
subsection.
it had weigh[ed] all the factors, the district court left this
Court to engage in wide-ranging speculation as to how the policy
statements
opposing
and
3553(a)
arguments
Government.
factors
offered
by
balanced
defense
in
light
counsel
of
and
the
the
formulating
Towness
sentence;
rather,
it
means
that
now
Circuit
consider
has
whether
clearly
it
was
articulated
plainly
that
so.
Because
district
court
this
is
rendered,
in
light
of
counsels
presentations,
runs
despite
the
Governments
arguments
to
the
failure
to
issue
reasoned
sentence
was
harmless.
For
argues
that
the
mitigating
evidence
While the
offered
by
escalating
presume
the
that
and
district
dangerous
court
would
behavior,
not
have
we
cannot
rendered
the district court that Townes was not a drug user and had not
produced a positive drug test throughout his time (more than
eighteen months) on supervised release.
the
district
court
recommended
that
Townes
undergo
intensive
to
conclude
that
the
district
court
entirely
explain its basis for rendering the sentence chosen and Townes
presented
non-frivolous
arguments
that,
if
explicitly
11
unable
to
find
that
the
procedural
sentencing
error
was
harmless.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is vacated and the
case is remanded to the district court for a new sentencing
hearing.
brief as moot.
VACATED AND REMANDED
12
majority
unreasonable
opinion
because
now
the
vacates
district
that
sentence
court
did
as
not
plainly
adequately
to
review
the
sentence,
leaving
us
to
make
be
range,
revocation
deference
sentences.
hard-pressed
we
to
sentences
afford
find
any
explanation
insufficient
district
As we have said, we
courts
given
when
for
the
within-
amount
imposing
of
these
I would
affirm.
As part of his sentence for possessing a stolen firearm and
aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(j), 924,
and 2, Townes was given a three-year term of supervised release,
13
motion
revoked
of
Townes
conditions.
Townes
probation
supervised
officer,
release
for
the
district
violation
On
court
of
these
district
departure
from
court
the
rejected
Guidelines
each
partys
recommended
request
range,
for
sentencing
After
hearing
the
evidence
and
the
arguments,
the
by
the
Sentencing
Guidelines
--
Grade
treatment,
treatment
request
during
for
seriousness
a
of
explicitly
his
sentence.
downward
the
recommending
The
departure,
violation,
and
that
court
obviously
rejected
he
receive
rejected
Townes
because
the
of
the
governments
positive
further
points
evidenced
by
presented
the
by
courts
Townes
counsel.
concluding
note
This
was
that,
if
16
implying
some
level
of
sympathy
with
the
within-range
sentence it imposed.
This record is not so vacant as to leave us at a loss as to
why the court imposed the 21-month sentence.
And certainly, it
In those
required
context.
when
Id.
some
explanation
may
be
clear
from
the
to
courts
illuminate
those
explanation
reasons,
plainly
id.,
should
unreasonable
we
deem
and
the
thus
I would affirm.
17