US v. Richard Wager

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:10-cr-00258-MOC-1,0:01-cr-00117-JFA-1,0:01-cr-00117-JFA-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998771244].. [11-4773, 11-4775]

Appeal: 11-4773

Document: 26

Date Filed: 01/24/2012

Page: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4773

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICHARD ALLEN WAGER,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-4775

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICHARD ALLEN WAGER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:10-cr-00258-MOC-1; 3:96-cr-00030-MOC-1)

Submitted:

January 17, 2012

Decided:

January 24, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Appeal: 11-4773

Document: 26

Date Filed: 01/24/2012

Page: 2 of 5

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henderson Hill, Executive Director, Elizabeth A. Blackwood,
Research and Writing Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 11-4773

Document: 26

Date Filed: 01/24/2012

Page: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Richard
imprisonment

Allen

and

Wager

was

thirty-nine

sentenced

months’

to

ten

months’

supervised

release

following the revocation of his supervised release.

Wager’s

counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for
appeal

but

questioning

substantively

whether

unreasonable

the

district

sentence

court

when

it

additional thirty-nine months of supervision.

imposed

imposed

a
an

Although informed

of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Wager has not
done so.

We affirm.
In

supervised

reviewing
release,

a

this

sentence
court

imposed
“takes

upon

a

revocation

more

of

‘deferential

appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of
discretion’

than

sentences.”

reasonableness

United

States v.

review

Moulden,

for
478

[G]uidelines

F.3d

652,

656

(4th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433,
439 (4th Cir. 2006)).
revocation

of

unreasonable.
Cir.

2010).

We will affirm a sentence imposed after

supervised

release

if

it

is

not

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

first

step

in

this

review

requires

determination of whether the sentence is unreasonable.
461

F.3d

at

substantively

plainly

438.

Only

unreasonable

if

the

does
3

sentence
the

is

inquiry

Crudup,

procedurally
proceed

a

to

or
the

Appeal: 11-4773

Document: 26

Date Filed: 01/24/2012

Page: 4 of 5

second step of the analysis to determine whether the sentence is
plainly unreasonable.
A

Id. at 438-39.

supervised

release

revocation

sentence

is

procedurally reasonable if the district court considered Chapter
Seven’s

advisory

§ 3553(a)

policy

(2006)

revocation.
438-40.

statement

factors

range

applicable

and

to

the

18

supervised

U.S.C.
release

See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2006); Crudup, 461 F.3d at

“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 must provide a statement
of reasons for the sentence imposed.”
(internal quotation marks omitted).
reasonable

if

the

district

Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547
A sentence is substantively

court

stated

a

proper

basis

for

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

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.

Upon review of the record, we agree with counsel’s
assessment
Although

that

Wager’s

counsel

sentence

suggests

is

the

procedurally

sentence

is

reasonable.

substantively

unreasonable because Wager had been gainfully employed, enrolled
in

substance

abuse

treatment,

and

had

no

contact

with

law

enforcement while on supervised release, we conclude otherwise.
The

district

necessary

in

court
light

reasonably
of

found

Wager’s

that

continued

the
use

sentence
of

was

illegal

substances, and the court acted well within its discretion in
4

Appeal: 11-4773

Document: 26

Date Filed: 01/24/2012

Page: 5 of 5

declining to reward Wager for his unabated drug use by ending
supervision.

Because the district court articulated a proper

basis for imposing a sentence below the statutory maximum, there
is

no

substantive

procedurally

and

error.

Because

substantively

Wager’s

reasonable,

it

sentence

is

not

is

plainly

unreasonable.
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

records in these cases and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the district

court.

This

writing,

of

court

the

requires

right

to

that

petition

counsel

United States for further review.

the

inform

Supreme

Wager,

Court

of

in
the

If Wager requests that a

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave
to withdraw from representation.

Counsel’s motion must state

that a copy thereof was served on Wager.

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

5