United States v. Andrew David Owens , 693 F. App'x 196 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4730
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANDREW DAVID OWENS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:13-cr-00069-F-1)
Submitted: June 29, 2017 Decided: July 14, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terry F. Rose, Smithfield, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United
States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine
L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Andrew David Owens appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his
supervised release and sentencing him to 21 months’ imprisonment followed by 18 years’
supervised release. Finding no reversible error, 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 is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly
unreasonable.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “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
sentence after considering the Sentencing Guidelines’ Chapter Seven policy statements
and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012);
Thompson, 595 F.3d at 546-47. “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 sentence imposed.” Thompson,
595 F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Owens claims that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district
court failed to adequately explain the reasons for imposing the term of supervised release.
Having reviewed the record, we find that the district court’s explanation, although brief,
was sufficient.
2
Accordingly, we reject Owens’ challenge to the procedural reasonableness of his
revocation sentence and affirm. We deny Owens’ pro se motion to file a supplemental
brief and to reconsider the order denying Owens’ motion to replace counsel. 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