United States v. Davis

Court Case Details
Court Case Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-5078


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,


v.


CHRISTOPHER EARL DAVIS, a/k/a Snake Bite, a/k/a Earl Davis,

Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (4:06-cr-00023-F-2)


Submitted: June 28, 2010

Decided: July 13, 2010


Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney,
Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Earl Davis appeals the district court’s

imposition of a twenty-four month sentence following the

revocation of his supervised release. On appeal, Davis contends

that his sentence is plainly unreasonable because the district

court failed to address his arguments for a lower sentence.

Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

The district court has broad discretion to impose a

sentence upon revoking a defendant’s supervised release. United

States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). We will

affirm unless the sentence is “plainly unreasonable” in light of

the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. United

States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). The

relevant applicable § 3553(a) factors to be considered are:

“the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and

characteristics of the defendant” and the need for the sentence

“to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; . . .

protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and . .

. provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational

training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the

most effective manner.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(B)-(D).

Our first step in evaluating a sentence imposed upon

revocation of supervised release is to decide whether the

sentence is unreasonable. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438; Thompson,

2

595 F.3d at 546. In doing so, we generally follow “the

procedural and substantive considerations” employed in reviewing

original sentences. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438. While the

district court need not explain the reasons for the sentence in

as much detail as when imposing the original sentence, “it still

must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed.”

Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Additionally, the district court should address the defendant’s

nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a sentence different from the

advisory sentencing range. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d

325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).

We find that the district court’s sentence was not

unreasonable. In handing down the sentence, the district court

took into account the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Chapter

7 policy statements and clearly considered the applicable

§ 3553(a) factors in arriving at a sentence. The district court

also adequately addressed Davis’ arguments in its explanation.

Thus, we find that the sentence imposed by the district court

was not unreasonable in light of the circumstances.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district

court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

4

Referenced Cases