United States v. Byron Tate ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-4265
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    BYRON LEE TATE,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.   Frank D. Whitney,
    District Judge. (3:01-cr-00185-FDW-3)
    Submitted:   July 18, 2011                    Decided:    August 5, 2011
    Before MOTZ and      SHEDD,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Frank A. Abrams, LAW OFFICE OF FRANK ABRAMS, PLLC, Asheville,
    North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States
    Attorney, Laura L. Ferris, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Byron Lee Tate appeals the district court’s judgment
    revoking   his       supervised   release,       sentencing     him    to   sixteen
    months’ imprisonment and thirty-two months’ supervised release.
    Tate challenges the factual basis upon which it was found that
    he violated two conditions for supervised release, the resulting
    sentence and the effectiveness of counsel.                We affirm.
    To revoke supervised release, a district court need
    only find a violation of a condition of supervised release by a
    preponderance of the evidence.                
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (e)(3) (2006).
    This burden “simply requires the trier of fact to believe that
    the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”
    United States v. Manigan, 
    592 F.3d 621
    , 631 (4th Cir. 2010)
    (internal quotation marks omitted).              A defendant challenging the
    sufficiency     of    the    evidence    bears    a    heavy    burden.      United
    States v. Beidler, 
    110 F.3d 1064
    , 1067 (4th Cir. 1997).                          In
    determining whether the evidence in the record is sufficient,
    this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the
    government.      United States v. Burgos, 
    94 F.3d 849
    , 862 (4th Cir.
    1996) (en banc).
    We     have      reviewed    the     record,   particularly       Tate’s
    admissions to both violations and the relevant testimony, and
    conclude   that      the    district    court    did   not     err    finding   Tate
    violated two conditions of supervised release.
    2
    The district court has broad discretion to impose a
    sentence upon revoking a defendant’s supervised release.                            United
    States v. Thompson, 
    595 F.3d 544
    , 547 (4th Cir. 2010).                                  This
    court will affirm unless the sentence is “plainly unreasonable”
    in light of the applicable 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) (2006) factors.
    United States v. Crudup, 
    461 F.3d 433
    , 437 (4th Cir. 2006).                              The
    court’s    first        step    is   to    “decide    whether       the     sentence     is
    unreasonable.”          
    Id.,
     
    461 F.3d at 438
    .               In doing so, the Court
    “follow[s]         generally         the         procedural         and      substantive
    considerations” employed in reviewing original sentences.                               
    Id.
    A     sentence     is     procedurally       reasonable        if     the       court   has
    considered the policy statements contained in Chapter 7 of the
    Guidelines and the applicable § 3553(a) factors, id. at 439, and
    has adequately explained the sentence chosen, though it need not
    explain the sentence in as much detail as when imposing the
    original sentence.             Thompson, 
    595 F.3d at 547
    .                 A sentence is
    substantively reasonable if the district court states a proper
    basis    for     its    imposition    of    a    sentence     up    to    the    statutory
    maximum.       Crudup, 
    461 F.3d at 440
    .               If, after considering the
    above, we determine the sentence is not unreasonable, we should
    affirm.     
    Id. at 439
    .          We conclude there was no error regarding
    the     sentence       and     the   district       court     did     not       abuse   its
    discretion.
    3
    We will set aside Tate’s allegations concerning the
    effectiveness of his counsel.                  Claims of ineffective assistance
    of   counsel    are    generally         not       cognizable    on    direct   appeal.
    Rather,   to   allow    for    adequate            development   of    the   record,   a
    defendant must bring his claim in a 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West
    Supp. 2011) motion.           See United States v. King, 
    119 F.3d 290
    ,
    295 (4th Cir. 1997).
    Accordingly, we affirm the 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-4265

Judges: Motz, Shedd, Hamilton

Filed Date: 8/5/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024