United States v. Darren McKee ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-4601
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARREN GERARD MCKEE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:11-cr-00154-NCT-1)
Submitted: April 27, 2021 Decided: April 30, 2021
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Craven, III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, Acting
United States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darren Gerard McKee appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his term of
supervised release and sentencing him to 7 months in prison, followed by a 14-year term
of supervised release. McKee contends that the district court did not adequately consider
his arguments for a lesser term of imprisonment. We affirm.
“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of
supervised release. [We] 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). “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 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. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2017) (footnotes and citation omitted); see 18
U.S.C. § 3583(c) (listing § 3553(a) factors relevant to revocation sentences). A sentence
is substantively reasonable if the district 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 sentence within the applicable
policy statement range is presumed reasonable. United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370,
373 (4th Cir. 2015). Applying these standards, we conclude that McKee’s 7-month
2
sentence—within the applicable 4- to 10-month policy statement range—is neither
procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.
We therefore 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
3