United States v. Hill , 375 F. App'x 342 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4670
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALVIN T. HILL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:04-cr-00012-F-1)
Submitted: April 16, 2010 Decided: April 27, 2010
Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, James E. Todd, Jr., Research
and Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alvin T. Hill appeals from the district court’s
judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to
twenty-four months of imprisonment, a sentence above the
advisory guidelines range. On appeal, Hill does not challenge
the district court’s finding that he violated the conditions of
his supervised release or the court’s revocation of supervised
release, but he contends his sentence was greater than necessary
to serve the purposes of sentencing and that the court failed to
explain sufficiently its chosen sentence. We affirm.
Although the sentence Hill received is above the
advisory sentencing guidelines range, it is within the
applicable statutory maximum sentence. Moreover, our review of
the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not
plainly err in its consideration of the statutory factors and
its statement of its reasons for imposing an above-guidelines
sentence. See United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th
Cir. 2010) (providing standard of review); United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (requiring an
individualized consideration of the sentencing factors as they
apply to the defendant). We therefore find that the sentence
imposed upon revocation of supervised release is not plainly
unreasonable. See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40
(4th Cir. 2006) (providing standard); see also United States v.
2
Finley, 531 F.3d 288, 294 (4th Cir. 2008) (“In applying the
‘plainly unreasonable’ standard, we first determine, using the
instructions given in Gall[ v. United States, 552 U.S. 38
(2007)], whether a sentence is ‘unreasonable.’”).
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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3