United States v. Jansen Carr ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4676 Doc: 21 Filed: 08/26/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-4676
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JANSEN V. CARR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:19-cr-00017-GMG-RWT-3)
Submitted: August 22, 2024 Decided: August 26, 2024
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Aaron D. Moss, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. William
Ihlenfeld, United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, Kimberley D. Crockett,
Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4676 Doc: 21 Filed: 08/26/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
In 2019, Jansen V. Carr pleaded guilty to distribution of cocaine base, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). The district court sentenced Carr to five years’ probation. In 2023,
the court revoked Carr’s probation and sentenced his to time-served, followed by three
years’ supervised release. Shortly thereafter, Carr violated the terms of his supervised
release. The district court revoked Carr’s supervised release and sentenced him to 24
months’ imprisonment. Carr now appeals, arguing that the upward-variant sentence is
plainly unreasonable because the district court did not adequately explain its chosen
sentence or address his nonfrivolous mitigating arguments. We affirm.
“We affirm a revocation sentence so long as it is within the prescribed statutory
range and is not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Coston, 964 F.3d 289, 296 (4th
Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). When reviewing whether a revocation
sentence is plainly unreasonable, we first “determine whether the sentence is unreasonable
at all.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “In making this determination, we follow
generally the procedural and substantive considerations that we employ in our review of
original sentences, with some necessary modifications to take into account the unique
nature of supervised release revocation sentences.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202,
207 (4th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up). “A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the
district court adequately explains the chosen sentence after considering the Sentencing
Guidelines’ nonbinding Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors.” Coston, 964 F.3d at 297 (internal quotation marks omitted); see 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e).
2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4676 Doc: 21 Filed: 08/26/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
We conclude Carr’s sentence is not plainly unreasonable. The district court
considered the relevant statutory factors and thoroughly explained its rationale for
imposing the above-policy statement range sentence, emphasizing that the statutory
maximum sentence was necessary to account for Carr’s repeated noncompliance with the
conditions of his release.
We therefore affirm the revocation 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