United States v. Shani Latham ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4293 Doc: 19 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4293
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHANI GWYNN LATHAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:19-cr-00409-WO-2)
Submitted: January 17, 2023 Decided: January 19, 2023
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Mark A. Jones, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Craig Matthew Principe, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4293 Doc: 19 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Shani Gwynn Latham appeals the district court’s judgment revoking her supervised
release and sentencing her to one year and one day of imprisonment. Counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court properly
concluded that Latham violated the conditions of supervised release and whether Latham’s
sentence is unreasonable. The Government has declined to file a brief. Although notified
of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Latham has not done so. We affirm.
To revoke supervised release, the district court need only find a violation of a
supervised release condition by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3);
United States v. Dennison, 925 F.3d 185, 191 (4th Cir. 2019). We “review[] a district
court’s decision to revoke a defendant’s supervised release for abuse of discretion,” its
underlying factual findings for clear error, and unpreserved challenges for plain error.
Dennison, 925 F.3d at 190. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in revoking Latham’s supervised release.
“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of
supervised release.” United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). “We will
affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly
unreasonable.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal
quotation marks omitted). “When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly
unreasonable, we must first determine whether it is unreasonable at all.” United States v.
Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010). “A revocation sentence is procedurally
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4293 Doc: 19 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 3 of 4
reasonable if the district court adequately explains the chosen sentence after considering
the Sentencing Guidelines’ nonbinding Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Slappy, 872 F.3d at 207 (footnote omitted); see 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e). A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the court states a proper
basis for concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the
statutory maximum. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 440 (4th Cir. 2006). “A court
need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when
imposing a post-conviction sentence, but it still must provide a statement of reasons for the
sentence imposed.” Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks omitted). Only
if a sentence is either procedurally or substantively unreasonable is a determination then
made as to whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. United States v. Moulden, 478
F.3d 652, 656-57 (4th Cir. 2007).
We conclude that Latham’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable.
The district court imposed a within-policy-statement-range sentence, considered the
relevant statutory factors, and gave sufficiently detailed reasons for its decision.
Specifically, the court emphasized that, despite having resources available and being
pregnant, Latham continued to possess and use drugs.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no meritorious grounds for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
revocation judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Latham, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Latham
requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4293 Doc: 19 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 4 of 4
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Latham.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4