United States v. Unula Abebe

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-5223
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
UNULA BOO SHAWN ABEBE, a/k/a Sean Tyquan Adams, a/k/a Tryon
T. Jakes, a/k/a Shaun Adeve,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (3:09-cr-00251-MJP-1)
Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: July 5, 2011
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew MacKenzie, BARRETT MACKENZIE, LLC, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States
Attorney, Jeffrey Mikell Johnson, Robert F. Daley, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Unula Boo Shawn Abebe appeals the two sixty-month
sentences imposed by the district court and ordered to run
consecutively following his conviction after a jury trial of two
counts of delivering through the mail a letter threatening the
life of the President of the United States, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 871(a) (2006). On appeal, Abebe contends that the
district court committed procedural sentencing error by failing
to adequately explain the sentence, and that the sentence is
excessive and thus substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, using an
abuse of discretion standard of review. Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The first step in this review requires
us to ensure that the district court committed no significant
procedural error. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161
(4th Cir. 2008). Procedural errors include “failing to consider
the § 3553(a) factors” or “failing to adequately explain the
chosen sentence.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The district court
must make an individualized assessment based on the facts
presented by applying the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)
factors to the circumstances of the case. Id. at 50-51
While the district court need not “robotically tick
through § 3553(a)’s every subsection,” United States v. Johnson,
445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006), the district court “‘should
2
set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has
considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for
exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.’” United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)). The court’s
explanation must be sufficient to allow for “meaningful
appellate review” such that the appellate court need “not guess
at the district court’s rationale.” Carter, 564 F.3d at 329-30.
(internal quotation marks omitted).
A procedural sentencing objection raised for the first
time on appeal is reviewed for plain error. United States v.
Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). “By drawing arguments
from § 3553 for a sentence different than the one ultimately
imposed, an aggrieved party sufficiently alerts the district
court of its responsibility to render an individualized
explanation addressing those arguments, and thus preserves its
claim.” Id. at 578.
Here, Abebe did not argue for a sentence different
than the one ultimately imposed, and thus his claim is reviewed
for plain error. Our review of the record leads us to conclude
that Abebe has not established error, much less plain error.
The district court considered the § 3553(a) factors and the
Government’s recommendation, and rendered an individualized
explanation highlighting its reasons for the chosen sentence.
3
Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not
procedurally err when imposing sentence.
We next review the substantive reasonableness of
Abebe’s sentence, taking into account the totality of the
circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In cases where, as here,
a defendant is subject to multiple terms of imprisonment, the
district court may order the terms to run consecutively or
concurrently. 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) (2006). In making this
determination, the district court shall consider the factors set
forth in § 3553(a). 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b) (2006). As noted
above, the district court considered the relevant § 3553(a)
factors in determining Abebe’s sentence. We conclude that, in
the totality of the circumstances in Abebe’s case, the sentence
is not substantively unreasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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