United States v. McLeod , 404 F. App'x 751 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-4487
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DONALD MCLEOD, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (7:01-cr-00042-F-1)
    Submitted:   November 16, 2010             Decided:   December 10, 2010
    Before MOTZ and    KING,    Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, United States Attorney,
    Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United
    States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Donald      McLeod,    Jr.,        appeals       the   district   court’s
    judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a sentence
    of thirty-six months’ imprisonment.                      McLeod alleges that his
    sentence is plainly unreasonable.                 For the following reasons, we
    affirm.
    A district court has broad sentencing discretion upon
    revoking a defendant’s supervised release.                          United States v.
    Thompson, 
    595 F.3d 544
    , 547 (4th Cir. 2010).                        We will affirm if
    the sentence is within the applicable statutory maximum and is
    not “plainly unreasonable.”               United States v. Crudup, 
    461 F.3d 433
    , 437, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006).                       In determining whether a
    revocation sentence is “plainly unreasonable,” we first assess
    the   sentence     for     unreasonableness,        “follow[ing]         generally   the
    procedural and substantive considerations that we employ in our
    review of original sentences.”              
    Id. at 438
    .
    A     supervised           release     revocation           sentence        is
    procedurally      reasonable       if    the    district      court     considered   the
    U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Chapter 7 policy statements
    and   the   
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a)        (2006)    factors     relevant      to    a
    supervised       release    revocation.           See    
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (e)(3)
    (2006); Crudup, 
    461 F.3d at 440
    .                   Although the district court
    need not explain the reasons for imposing a revocation sentence
    in as much detail as when it imposes an original sentence, it
    2
    “still      must    provide      a    statement            of   reasons   for     the    sentence
    imposed.”          Thompson, 
    595 F.3d at 547
     (internal quotation marks
    omitted).        A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if
    the    district      court      stated       a    proper        basis   for   concluding        the
    defendant        should     receive          the          sentence    imposed,     up    to     the
    statutory maximum.              Crudup, 
    461 F.3d at 440
    . Only if a sentence
    is    found      procedurally         or     substantively            unreasonable       will    we
    “decide whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable.”                                    
    Id. at 439
    .
    We have carefully reviewed McLeod’s sentence and find
    it     to   be     procedurally         and        substantively          reasonable.           The
    district         court     heard        the        parties’          arguments,        explicitly
    considered the Chapter Seven advisory policy statement range and
    the pertinent 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) factors, and explained its
    reasoning        supporting          the     thirty-six           month    sentence.            The
    district court stated a proper basis for McLeod’s sentence —
    namely,       McLeod’s          continuous                 criminal     conduct         involving
    narcotics,         and    the    downward             departure       awarded     in     McLeod’s
    original      sentence.              Based       on       our   conclusion      that     McLeod’s
    sentence is neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable,
    “it necessarily follows that” McLeod’s sentence is not “plainly
    unreasonable.”           Crudup, 
    461 F.3d at 440
    .
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment
    revoking McLeod’s supervised release and imposing a thirty-six
    3
    month prison term.       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: 10-4487

Citation Numbers: 404 F. App'x 751

Judges: Motz, King, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/10/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024