United States v. Glenn Williams ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4104
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GLENN WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:07-cr-00263-FL-1)
Submitted: August 7, 2014 Decided: August 18, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and THACKER, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Glenn Williams appeals the twenty-four month statutory
maximum sentence imposed by the district court upon revocation
of his term of supervised release. On appeal, Williams contends
that the district court’s sentence was plainly unreasonable.
Finding no error, we affirm.
The district court has broad discretion to impose a
sentence after revoking a defendant’s supervised release.
United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). Thus,
we assume “a deferential appellate posture concerning issues of
fact and the exercise of [that] discretion.” United States v.
Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
We must “first decide whether the sentence is
unreasonable.” Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438. In doing so, “we
follow generally the procedural and substantive considerations”
employed in reviewing original sentences. Id. A sentence is
procedurally reasonable if the district court has considered the
advisory policy statements contained in Chapter 7 of the U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual and the applicable 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a) (2012) factors, id. at 439, and has provided some
explanation for the sentence chosen, United States v. Thompson,
595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). A sentence is substantively
reasonable if the court states a proper basis for concluding
2
that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to
the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. Only if we
find a sentence to be procedurally or substantively unreasonable
will we consider whether the sentence is “plainly” unreasonable.
Id. at 439.
Applying our deferential standard of review, we
conclude that Williams’ sentence was not unreasonable, much less
plainly so. The district court has “broad discretion to . . .
impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum.”
Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Given the facts of this case, we conclude that the district
court did not abuse its broad discretion in imposing the
statutory maximum of twenty-four months’ imprisonment upon
revocation of Williams’ term of supervised release.
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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3