United States v. Strickland , 211 F. App'x 177 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4327
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
THOMAS ROSS STRICKLAND,
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-00034-F)
Submitted: November 30, 2006 Decided: December 27, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. George E. B. Holding, Acting 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
In May 2004, Thomas Ross Strickland pled guilty and was
convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was
sentenced to twelve months of imprisonment and thirty-six months of
supervised release. In February 2006, Strickland's probation
officer filed a petition to revoke Strickland's supervised release
because Strickland had tested positive for marijuana on a number of
occasions. At his revocation hearing, Strickland did not contest
the allegations. The district court found that Strickland
committed the charged violations and revoked his supervised
release. The court sentenced Strickland to twenty-four months in
prison, the statutory maximum. On appeal, Strickland contends that
the district court erred when it imposed a sentence outside the
range recommended by the Chapter 7 advisory policy statement
because, the court stated, a longer sentence would increase the
likelihood that Strickland would be given the opportunity to enter
the Bureau of Prisons’ residential intensive drug treatment
program. We affirm.
We recently held in United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433(4th Cir. 2006), that we review sentences imposed upon the
revocation of supervised release to determine whether the sentence
is “plainly unreasonable.” In this case, Strickland's sentence was
within the applicable statutory maximum, the court considered the
Chapter 7 advisory guideline range of five to eleven months, and
- 2 -
the court stated a proper basis for its decision to sentence
Strickland to twenty-four months in prison. See Crudup, 461 F.3d
at 440. Specifically, the court stated that it believed Strickland
was addicted to marijuana and needed intensive drug treatment. The
court imposed a sentence that was calculated to increase the
likelihood that Strickland would receive such treatment. Because
Strickland's sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively
unreasonable, we find that his sentence is not plainly
unreasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order
revoking Strickland's supervised release and imposing a twenty-four
month sentence. 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 -