United States of America v. Nkhenge Shropshire, a/k/a Konjay Shropshire

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4733
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NKHENGE SHROPSHIRE, a/k/a Konjay Shropshire,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:13-cr-00248-FDW-1)
Submitted: September 28, 2023 Decided: October 2, 2023
Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Jennifer Coulter, COULTER LAW OFFICE, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Dena J. King, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy E. Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Nkhenge Shropshire appeals the judgment imposed following the district court’s
revocation of her supervised release. The court sentenced Shropshire to 15 months’
imprisonment, to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed for Shropshire’s new
federal offenses, which formed the basis for two of her supervised release violations. On
appeal, Shropshire argues that the district court failed to sufficiently explain its imposition
of a consecutive sentence. We affirm.
“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). Thus, we
will “affirm a revocation sentence so long as it is within the prescribed statutory range and
is not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Coston, 964 F.3d 289, 296 (4th Cir. 2020)
(internal quotation marks omitted). When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is
plainly unreasonable, we first determine “whether the sentence is unreasonable at all.” Id.
(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,” id. at 297
(internal quotation marks omitted), and the explanation indicates “that the court considered
any potentially meritorious arguments raised by the parties,” United States v. Patterson,
957 F.3d 426, 436-37 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “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

-- 2 of 4 --

3
sentence imposed.” United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Similarly, the court “must address the parties’ nonfrivolous
arguments in favor of a particular sentence, and if the court rejects those arguments, it must
explain why in a detailed-enough manner that this [c]ourt can meaningfully consider the
procedural reasonableness of the revocation sentence.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d
202, 208 (4th Cir. 2017).
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a), “if a term of imprisonment is imposed on a
defendant who is already subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment, the terms may
run concurrently or consecutively.” Further, in situations where the defendant committed
a new criminal offense while on supervised release, the Guidelines recommend that the
sentences for the offense and the supervised release violation run consecutively. U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.3(f), p.s. (2021). Here, the district court properly
considered the fact that supervised release did not deter Shropshire from committing new
fraud offenses, as well as her criminal history and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing
disparities, in rejecting Shropshire’s arguments in favor of a revocation sentence imposed
concurrently with her new criminal sentence. We therefore conclude that Shropshire’s
sentence is procedurally reasonable, as the court provided an adequate explanation for its
sentencing decision after considering the applicable § 3553(a) factors.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --