US v. William Reid

Filing 920090518

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4902

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM HENRY REID, JR., a/k/a Hamza Jameel Saddiq, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (7:97-cr-00748-HMH-1)

Submitted:

April 16, 2009

Decided:

May 18, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: William Henry Reid, Jr., appeals from the district

court's judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a twenty-four-month prison term. On appeal, Reid's counsel has

filed an Anders * brief, stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning the decision to revoke Reid's supervised imposed. release and the appropriateness of the sentence

Although informed of his right to do so, Reid has not After a thorough review of

filed a pro se supplemental brief. the record, we affirm.

After considering the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, a district court may revoke a term of supervised release upon finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release. § 3583(e)(3) (2006). 18 U.S.C.

Appellate courts review the decision to

revoke supervised release for an abuse of discretion and the factual findings and credibility determinations for clear error. See United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003). Here, the district court did not clearly err in

finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Reid used and trafficked
*

in

illegal

drugs.

Although

Reid

denied

that

the

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

2

drugs found in his home belonged to him, he fled from police officers, tested positive for drugs, and was found with digital scales on his person. Thus, given the contrary evidence, it was

not clearly erroneous for the district court to reject Reid's testimony. discretion Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its in finding that Reid violated a condition of his

supervised release. We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within the applicable statutory

maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.

See United States v. We first

Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). assesses the sentence for unreasonableness,

"follow[ing]

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." Id. at 438-39. If

we conclude that a sentence is not unreasonable, we will affirm the sentence. or Id. at 439. Only if a sentence will Id. sentence considered is the we is found

procedurally

substantively

unreasonable

"decide

whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable." A procedurally supervised reasonable if release the

revocation court

district

Chapter Seven advisory policy statement range and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors that it is 3 permitted to consider in a

supervised release revocation case. Crudup, 461 F.3d if the at 440. Such court a

See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); sentence stated a is substantively basis for

reasonable

district

proper

concluding the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. is plainly unreasonable Id. at 439. the district court failed to provide any Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. if it is clearly or A sentence obviously

unreasonable.

Because

explanation for why it imposed a twenty-four-month sentence or what sentencing factors it considered, the sentence is at least arguably However, "plainly both we substantively conclude because and that the procedurally Reid's unreasonable. was not the

easily

sentence was

unreasonable"

sentence

within

recommended Guidelines range and (due to the maximum statutory sentence) was well below the originally calculated Guidelines range. Moreover, the district court essentially found that Reid

committed perjury at his revocation hearing, and the record does not contain any basis on which to conclude that the imposed sentence is clearly or obviously unreasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. This

court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 4

further filed,

review. but

If

the

client

requests such a

that

a

petition would

be be

counsel

believes

that

petition

frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that We dispense with oral

a copy thereof was served on the client.

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

5