US v. Michael Edward Carr
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4586
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL EDWARD CARR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (4:97-cr-00274) Submitted: January 29, 2008 Decided: February 22, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Fredilyn Sison, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Michael Edward Carr appeals the district court's judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-one months' imprisonment, a sentence at the bottom of the applicable range based on the non-binding federal sentencing guidelines policy statement. unreasonable. We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed statutory range and is not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437-39 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1813 (2007). In making this determination, we first consider whether the Carr contends that the sentence is substantively
sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. 438-39.
Only if a sentence is found to be unreasonable will this Id. at 439. Although the
court determine if it is "plainly" so.
district court must consider the Chapter Seven policy statements, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Ch. 7, Pt. B (2006), as well as the statutory requirements and factors applicable to parole
revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 3553(a) & 3583 (West 2000 & Supp. 2007), the court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke the previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-39.
Although, as Carr contends, the district court provided no explanation for its sentence, it is undisputed that the district court properly calculated the applicable range and imposed a sentence at the bottom of that range. - 2 We find nothing clearly or
obviously erroneous in the sentence imposed by the district court. See United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 657 (4th Cir. 2007) (defining plainly unreasonable sentence as one that is clearly or obviously erroneous). Accordingly, we affirm Carr's sentence. 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.
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?