United States v. Crawley , 160 F. App'x 311 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4621
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WINDELL FELTON CRAWLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (CR-00-135)
Submitted: December 22, 2005 Decided: December 29, 2005
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Craig W. Sampson, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J.
McNulty, United States Attorney, Vince Gambale, Brian R. Hood,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Windell Felton Crawley appeals from his thirty-six-month
sentence, imposed after the district court revoked his supervised
release. Crawley contends that the district court abused its
discretion by imposing a sentence above the advisory guideline
range and by failing to consider factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2000). Crawley asserts that the district court’s
deviation from the advisory guideline range was unreasonable
because of Crawley’s age, criminal history, and the progress of his
rehabilitation.
At the revocation hearing, Crawley’s second in nine
months, the district court heard testimony that Crawley violated
several conditions of his supervised release, including testing
positive for cocaine use and failing to pay child support. We
conclude that the district court had a satisfactory factual basis
for sentencing Crawley outside the advisory guideline range and
within the statutory maximum.
Additionally, we find that the district court
sufficiently considered Crawley’s circumstances and the purposes of
sentencing. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir.
1995); see also United States v. Contreras-Martinez, 409 F.3d 1236,
1240-41 (10th Cir. 2005). The district court specifically noted
Crawley’s “inclination to violate the law,” his reluctance to pay
- 2 -
child support, and the lack of rehabilitative success he
demonstrated during his term of supervised release.
Accordingly, we affirm Crawley’s 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 -