US v. Gary Ellington, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:05-cr-00083-REP-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998607496].. [10-4868]

Appeal: 10-4868

Document: 22

Date Filed: 06/08/2011

Page: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4868

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GARY W. ELLINGTON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00083-REP-1)

Submitted:

April 14, 2011

Decided:

June 8, 2011

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Mary E. Maguire,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, Research
and Writing Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H.
MacBride, United States Attorney, Brandon M. Santos, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-4868

Document: 22

Date Filed: 06/08/2011

Page: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Gary W. Ellington, Jr., pleaded guilty to one count of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon/user of controlled
substance and one count of possession of marijuana.

He was

sentenced to a total of fifty-one months’ imprisonment and three
years

of

supervised

release.

While

on

supervised

release,

Ellington violated several conditions of his supervised release.
The district court revoked Ellington’s supervised release and
sentenced
further

him

to

supervised

claiming

that

unreasonable.

revocation

months

release.

the

in

prison

followed

Ellington
court’s

district

appeals

his

sentence

by

no

sentence,

was

plainly

We affirm.

This

court

of

will

affirm

supervised

a

release

sentence
if

it

imposed

is

not

after
plainly

United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th

unreasonable.
Cir.

eighteen

2010).

The

first

step

in

this

review

requires

a

determination of whether the sentence is unreasonable.

United

States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006).

“This

initial

inquiry

takes

a

more

‘deferential

appellate

posture

concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion’ than
reasonableness

review

for

[G]uidelines

sentences.”

United

States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting
Crudup,

461

F.3d

standard

of

review

at
for

439)

(applying

probation
2

“plainly

revocation).

unreasonable”
Only

if

the

Appeal: 10-4868

Document: 22

Date Filed: 06/08/2011

Page: 3 of 4

sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable does the
inquiry proceed to the second step of the analysis to determine
whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable.

Crudup, 461 F.3d

at 438-39.
A

supervised

procedurally

reasonable

release
if

the

revocation

district

sentence

court

is

considered

the

advisory policy statement range based upon Chapter Seven of the
Sentencing Guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors applicable to
See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2006);

supervised release revocation.
Crudup,

461

reasonable

if

F.3d

at

the

438-40.

district

A

sentence

court

stated

a

is

substantively

proper

basis

for

concluding the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up
to the statutory maximum.

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.

“A court

need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation
sentence as it must be when imposing a post-conviction sentence,
but

it

still

sentence

provide

marks
we

a

statement

Thompson,

imposed.”

quotation
record,

must

omitted).

conclude

that

595

After

of

F.3d

reasons
at

thoroughly

Ellington’s

547

for

(internal

reviewing

sentence

the

was

the
both

procedurally and substantively reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
legal

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions

are

adequately

3

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 10-4868

before

Document: 22

the

court

Date Filed: 06/08/2011

and

argument

would

Page: 4 of 4

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

4