United States of America v. Edward Venez Shipman

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4337
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDWARD VENEZ SHIPMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:03-cr-00044-F-1)
Submitted: October 29, 2010 Decided: November 12, 2010
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, James E. Todd, Jr., Research
and Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-
Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Edward Venez Shipman appeals the twenty-four-month
sentence he received upon revocation of his supervised release.
He contends that the district court imposed a plainly
unreasonable sentence, failing to address mitigating factors and
to provide sufficient reason for a sentence above the 7-13-month
revocation range set out in Chapter 7 of the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (2009). We affirm.
The district court has broad discretion to impose a
sentence upon revoking a defendant’s supervised release. United
States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). We will
affirm unless the sentence is “plainly unreasonable” in light of
the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. United
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006).
We must first “decide whether the sentence is
unreasonable.” Id. at 438. In doing so, we “follow generally
the procedural and substantive considerations” used in reviewing
original sentences. Id.. A sentence is procedurally reasonable
if the district court has considered the policy statements
contained in Chapter 7 of the guidelines and the applicable
§ 3553(a) factors, id. at 440, and has adequately explained the
sentence chosen, though it need not explain the sentence in as
much detail as when imposing the original sentence. Thompson,
595 F.3d at 547. A sentence is substantively reasonable if the

-- 2 of 4 --

3
district court states a proper basis for its imposition of a
sentence up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.
If, after considering the above, we are convinced that the
sentence is not unreasonable, we will affirm. Id. at 439.
Under this court’s deferential standard of review,
Shipman’s sentence is not procedurally or substantively
unreasonable. Shipman argues that the district court failed to
consider his inability to secure a stable residence. He also
claims that the court failed to give sufficient reasons for the
extent of its variance above the guideline range, and thus
failed to follow the mandate in § 3553(a) to impose a sentence
“sufficient but not greater than necessary” to fulfill the
statute’s sentencing purposes. The court also heard the
probation officer’s testimony about his effort to supervise
Shipman for over a year and Shipman’s lack of cooperation, as
evidenced by his repeated marijuana use, additional criminal
conduct, failure to stay in contact with the probation officer,
and unwillingness to return to a residential reentry center to
remedy his homeless state. Last, the district court heard
Shipman’s statement in which he asserted that the probation
officer had failed to help him despite his requests for help.
The district court expressly considered the advisory
Chapter 7 guideline range of 7-13 months. However, the court
determined that the guideline range did not adequately account

-- 3 of 4 --

4
for Shipman’s “pattern of refusing to follow the rules,” thus
impliedly accepting the probation officer’s version of events
during his period of supervised release. A revocation sentence
“should sanction primarily the defendant’s breach of trust.”
USSG ch. 7, pt. A, intro. cmt. 3(b). We conclude that Shipman’s
twenty-four-month sentence was not unreasonable.
We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the
district court. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --