United States v. Roger Cochran, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4409
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ROGER DALE COCHRAN, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:07-cr-00199-TLW-1)
Submitted: October 4, 2012 Decided: October 16, 2012
Before AGEE, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Meetze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United
States Attorney, Jean M. Popowski, Assistant United States
Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roger Dale Cochran, Jr., appeals the five month
sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. On
appeal, Cochran contends that his five-month sentence is
unreasonable. We affirm.
We will affirm a sentence imposed following revocation
of supervised release if it is within the applicable statutory
maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. United States v.
Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). In determining
whether a revocation sentence is unreasonable, “we follow
generally the procedural and substantive considerations” used in
reviewing original sentences. Id. at 438. Only if we find the
sentence procedurally or substantively unreasonable must we
decide whether it is plainly so. United States v. Moulden, 478
F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007).
Cochran’s sentence is well below the statutory maximum
of twenty-four months. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2006).
Further, the sentence is procedurally reasonable: the district
court considered both the Chapter 7 policy statements and the 18
U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West Supp. 2011) factors that it was
permitted to consider. See Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-40.
Finally, the sentence is substantively reasonable, because the
court sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing the
2
sentence, emphasizing the serious breach of trust that Cochran
committed by repeatedly testing positive for illegal drugs.
Cochran contends that the district court erred by not
extending the term of his supervision. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(g)(4) (2006), the district court was required to impose a
sentence of imprisonment given Cochran’s positive drug tests.
To the extent that Cochran argued he should be entitled to the
exception under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) (2006), the court properly
addressed his contentions and did not err by concluding that the
exception was not warranted in this instance.
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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3