United States v. James Nelson , 607 F. App'x 236 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-4456
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JAMES LEWIS NELSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    No. 14-4457
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JAMES LEWIS NELSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
    District Judge. (1:02-cr-00054-MR-1; 1:08-cr-00091-MR-DLH-1)
    Submitted:   February 25, 2015            Decided:   April 8, 2015
    Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Charles R. Brewer, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Richard Lee Edwards, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States
    Attorneys, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    In these consolidated cases, James Lewis Nelson appeals the
    district       court’s       judgment        revoking       his    term     of     supervised
    release in two criminal cases and sentencing him to 11 months’
    imprisonment.          Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
    California,      
    386 U.S. 738
          (1967),      stating    that    there        are    no
    meritorious       issues       for     appeal         but   suggesting      that     a     lower
    sentence       would      have       been     appropriate         given     that     Nelson’s
    violative conduct — particularly, his ongoing marijuana use —
    was     in    response        to     his     otherwise        untreated          anxiety       and
    depression.          We view this argument, which counsel concedes is
    raised for the first time on appeal, as a challenge to the
    substantive       reasonableness             of       Nelson’s    sentence.          Although
    advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Nelson
    has not done so.             The Government has declined to file a response
    brief.       Following our careful review of the record, 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).                           We will affirm a
    revocation sentence if it falls within the prescribed statutory
    range    and    is     not    “plainly       unreasonable.”           United       States       v.
    Crudup, 
    461 F.3d 433
    , 437–39 (4th Cir. 2006).                              In making this
    determination, we first consider whether the sentence imposed is
    procedurally         or   substantively           unreasonable,      applying       the    same
    3
    general considerations employed in review of original criminal
    sentences.       
    Id. at 438
    .        “This     initial       inquiry         takes    a   more
    deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the
    exercise      of        discretion        than          reasonableness            review      for
    [G]uidelines sentences.”                 United States v. Moulden, 
    478 F.3d 652
    , 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    Only   if   we     find      the    sentence       unreasonable           will    we     consider
    whether it is “plainly” so.                      
    Id. at 657
     (internal quotation
    marks omitted).
    A   supervised        release     revocation           sentence     is     procedurally
    reasonable        if     the       district        court       considered         the      policy
    statements        contained         in   Chapter         Seven       of     the     Sentencing
    Guidelines and the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) (2012) factors applicable
    to revocation sentences.                 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (e) (2012); Crudup,
    
    461 F.3d at 439
    .               Although a district court must provide a
    statement of reasons for the sentence it imposes, it “need not
    be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence
    as   it    must    be     when     imposing        a    post-conviction           sentence[.]”
    United States v. Thompson, 
    595 F.3d 544
    , 547 (4th Cir. 2010).                                   A
    revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the district
    court stated a proper basis for concluding the defendant should
    receive     the    sentence        imposed,        up    to    the   statutory           maximum.
    Crudup, 
    461 F.3d at 440
    .
    4
    We review the lone issue raised in counsel’s Anders brief
    for   plain    error,      as   this   argument          was   not      pressed    in   the
    district court.      See United States v. Lemon, __ F.3d __, 
    2015 WL 294329
    , at *2 (4th Cir. Jan. 23, 2015) (reviewing for plain
    error    newly    raised    argument     to       undermine       supervised       release
    revocation     sentence).          Nelson’s       challenge       to    the   substantive
    reasonableness      of    his     sentence       fails    on   this      record.     After
    properly considering the advisory policy statement range of 6 to
    12 months’ imprisonment and responding to the arguments made by
    counsel and Nelson, the court sentenced Nelson near the top of
    the policy statement range.              The court explained that the 11-
    month    sentence    was    appropriate          given    that    the     court’s    prior
    extensions of leniency were met by Nelson’s repeated abuse of
    the court’s trust.         See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ch. 7,
    pt.     A(3)(b)    (2008)       (providing        revocation           sentence    “should
    sanction      primarily     the     defendant’s          breach    of     trust”).      We
    discern no substantive unreasonableness, plain or otherwise, in
    the district court’s reliance on this factor to sentence this
    defendant.        That Nelson used marijuana in an effort to self-
    medicate does not countenance a different result, given that
    Nelson did not avail himself of the probation officer’s efforts
    to secure him mental health treatment.
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the records in
    these cases and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.                            We
    5
    therefore    affirm      the    district       court’s       judgment.          This   court
    requires that counsel inform Nelson, in writing, of the right to
    petition    the   Supreme       Court    of       the   United      States     for   further
    review.     If    Nelson       requests       that      a   petition      be    filed,     but
    counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
    counsel    may    move   in     this    court       for     leave    to     withdraw       from
    representation.       Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
    was served on Nelson.             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
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-4456, 14-4457

Citation Numbers: 607 F. App'x 236

Judges: Keenan, Wynn, Diaz

Filed Date: 4/8/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024