US v. Octavius Fryar

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:11-cr-00146-H-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998994483].. [12-4371]

Appeal: 12-4371

Doc: 24

Filed: 12/04/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4371

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
OCTAVIUS FRYAR,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.
Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (7:11-cr-00146-H-1)

Submitted:

November 27, 2012

Before WILKINSON and
Senior Circuit Judge.

NIEMEYER,

Decided:

Circuit

December 4, 2012

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4371

Doc: 24

Filed: 12/04/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Octavius Fryar appeals the district court’s judgment
finding

he

violated

his

conditions

of

supervised

release,

revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twentyfour months in prison.

Fryar argues only that his sentence is

substantively unreasonable.
This

court

Finding no error, we affirm.

will

affirm

a

sentence

imposed

after

revocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed
statutory range and is not plainly unreasonable.
v.

Crudup,

district

461

court

F.3d

433,

must

438-40

Cir.

the

consider

(4th

Chapter

United States

2006).
Seven

While

a

policy

statements, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Ch. 7, Pt. B, and
the statutory requirements and factors applicable to revocation
sentences under 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e) (West 2000 &
Supp. 2012), the district court ultimately has broad discretion
to revoke supervised release and impose a term of imprisonment
up to the statutory maximum.
A
procedurally

supervised
reasonable

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-39.

release
if

the

revocation

district

court

sentence

is

considered

the

Chapter 7 advisory policy statements and the § 3553(a) factors
it is permitted to consider in a supervised release revocation
case.

See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439-40.

And although the district court need not explain the reasons for
imposing a revocation sentence in as much detail as when it
2

Appeal: 12-4371

Doc: 24

Filed: 12/04/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

imposes an original sentence, it “still must provide a statement
of

reasons

for

the

sentence

imposed.”

United

States

v.

Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation
marks

omitted).

reasonable

if

A

the

revocation

district

sentence
stated

court

is

proper

a

substantively
basis

for

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

is

found

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.

procedurally

or

substantively

Only if a

unreasonable

will this court “then decide whether the sentence is plainly
unreasonable.”
the

record

Id. at 439 (emphasis omitted).

and

have

considered

discern no sentencing error.

the

We have reviewed

parties’

arguments

and

We therefore conclude that Fryar’s

sentence is not plainly unreasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3