United States v. David Kitchen ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4143 Doc: 26 Filed: 11/22/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-4143
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID R. KITCHEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:15-cr-00047-RBS-LRL-1)
Submitted: November 19, 2024 Decided: November 22, 2024
Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Peter L. Goldman, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber,
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Kristin G. Bird, Assistant United States
Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, Vetan Kapoor, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-4143 Doc: 26 Filed: 11/22/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
David R. Kitchen appeals the six-month term of home confinement imposed
following the revocation of his supervised release. On appeal, Kitchen asserts that the
district court abused its discretion when it imposed the term of home confinement because
he had otherwise adjusted to the terms of his supervised release. We affirm.
“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of
supervised release. This [c]ourt will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory
maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Patterson, 957 F.3d 426, 436
(4th Cir. 2020). Before deciding “whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable,
[we] must first determine whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively
unreasonable,” id., applying “the same procedural and substantive considerations that
guide our review of original sentences” but taking “a more deferential appellate posture
than we do when reviewing original sentences,” United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370,
373 (4th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). “[I]f a sentence is either procedurally or substantively
unreasonable,” we then address “whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable—that is,
whether the unreasonableness is clear or obvious.” Patterson, 957 F.3d at 437 (internal
quotation marks omitted).
“A revocation sentence is procedurally 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.” United
States v. Coston, 964 F.3d 289, 297 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted); see
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (listing applicable factors). “[A]lthough the court need not be as
2
USCA4 Appeal: 24-4143 Doc: 26 Filed: 11/22/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a
post-conviction sentence, it still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence
imposed.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 208 (4th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up). The
district court must, at a minimum, explain the sentence sufficiently to permit meaningful
appellate review, “with the assurance that the court considered any potentially meritorious
arguments raised by [the defendant] with regard to his sentencing.” United States v. Gibbs,
897 F.3d 199, 205 (4th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up). “A revocation sentence is substantively
reasonable if, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the court states an appropriate
basis for concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed.” Coston, 964
F.3d at 297 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We have reviewed the record in conjunction with the parties’ arguments and
conclude that the imposed revocation sentence is reasonable and, thus, not plainly
unreasonable. Notably, the record confirms that the district court explained its reasons for
the sentence in detail and, moreover, that the court was measured in its reasoning, seeking
to balance the escalation in Kitchen’s defiance with his nearly 11 months of positive
behavior. We conclude that the district court sufficiently stated a proper basis for its
conclusion that Kitchen should receive the sentence imposed. See Slappy, 872 F.3d at 207-
08.
Accordingly, we affirm the revocation order. 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
3