United States v. Michael Bonsu

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-4185
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL BONSU,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:14-cr-00121-JAG-DJN-4)
Submitted: August 12, 2019 Decided: August 21, 2019
Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, Appellate Attorney,
Alexandria, Virginia, Carolyn V. Grady, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF
THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. G. Zachary
Terwilliger, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Michael C. Moore, Assistant
United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Bonsu appeals the 24-month sentence imposed following the district
court’s revocation of his supervised release. On appeal, Bonsu challenges both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. For the reasons that follow, we
affirm.
“A district court has broad . . . discretion in fashioning a sentence upon revocation
of a defendant’s term of supervised release.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 206
(4th Cir. 2017). “We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum
and is not plainly unreasonable.” Id. at 207 (internal quotation marks omitted). “To
consider whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we first must determine
whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable.” Id.
A district court imposes a procedurally reasonable sentence by “considering the
Sentencing Guidelines’ nonbinding Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) [(2012)] factors,” “adequately explain[ing] the chosen sentence,” and
“meaningfully respond[ing] to the parties’ nonfrivolous arguments” for a different
sentence. Id. And a court complies with substantive reasonableness requirements by
“sufficiently stat[ing] a proper basis for its conclusion that the defendant should receive the
sentence imposed.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Even if a revocation sentence
is unreasonable, we will reverse only if it is “plainly so.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Contrary to Bonsu’s claims on appeal, our review of the revocation hearing confirms
that the district court adequately addressed Bonsu’s request for in-patient corrective
2
treatment, properly considered his history of assaultive conduct, see 18 U.S.C.
§§ 3553(a)(1), 3583(e) (2012), and fully explained why a sentence within the 5- to 11-
month policy statement range was insufficient to satisfy the goals of sentencing. In
addition, the court made clear that, despite Bonsu’s redeeming qualities, his repeated
supervision violations warranted the statutory maximum sentence of 24 months’
imprisonment. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its broad discretion
in imposing the chosen sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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