US v. Bobby Lee Minton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:07-cr-00010-RLV-CH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999037629].. [12-4540]

Download PDF
Appeal: 12-4540 Doc: 34 Filed: 02/06/2013 Pg: 1 of 5 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4540 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BOBBY LEE MCCAINE MINTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00010-RLV-CH-1) Submitted: January 15, 2013 Decided: February 6, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chiege O. Kalu Okwara, LAW OFFICE OF CHIEGE O. KALU OKWARA, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Maria Kathleen Vento, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 12-4540 Doc: 34 Filed: 02/06/2013 Pg: 2 of 5 PER CURIAM: Bobby Lee McCaine Minton appeals the district court’s order revoking his term of supervised release and imposing a sentence of twelve months’ imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether Minton’s supervised sentence was the district release plainly and court erroneously whether unreasonable. the Minton revoked twelve-month was given the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. The Government has declined to file a response. We affirm. A district court may revoke a term of supervised release if it “finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2006). terms of his supervised of supervised release.” 18 Minton admitted to violating the release by using illegal drugs. Revocation of supervised release is required if the defendant possessed a controlled substance, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(1) (2006), and “proof of intentional use of a controlled substance is sufficient to establish possession and trigger the application of § 3583(g).” 1994). United States v. Clark, 30 F.3d 23, 25 (4th Cir. The district court therefore did not err in revoking Minton’s supervised release. 2 Appeal: 12-4540 Doc: 34 Filed: 02/06/2013 A court sentence district after revoking Pg: 3 of 5 has a broad discretion defendant’s to impose supervised a release. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within the statutory maximum and is not “plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). In making this determination, we first consider whether the sentence substantively unreasonable. imposed is Id. at 438. procedurally or A supervised release revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court considered the advisory policy statement range and the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2011) factors applicable to supervised release revocation. not be as detailed or Id. at 438-40. specific when “A court need imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a post-conviction sentence, but it still sentence must imposed.” quotation marks reasonable if the provide a statement Thompson, omitted). 595 A district of F.3d reasons at 547 sentence court is stated proper a for the (internal substantively basis for concluding the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. sentence will we is found “then unreasonable.” Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. procedurally decide or whether Id. at 439. 3 substantively the sentence Only if a unreasonable is plainly Appeal: 12-4540 Doc: 34 Filed: 02/06/2013 After revocation review sentence reasonable. The applicable is the record, both The sentence maximum district we conclude procedurally twelve-month statutory imprisonment. of Pg: 4 of 5 of court and is that the substantively well below twenty-four sufficiently the months’ explained its rationale for the sentence imposed, emphasizing the fact that the court previously provided Minton an opportunity to rectify his behavior after testing positive for illegal drug use within two months addition, factors of the in his release court fashioning from prison, appropriately its to no considered sentence, avail. the including the In § 3553(a) goal of deterrence, the history and characteristics of the defendant, and the need to provide the defendant with rehabilitative care. The imposition of a twelve-month sentence was therefore not plainly unreasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for meritorious issues and have found none. affirm the district court’s judgment. We therefore This court requires that counsel inform Minton, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Minton requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Minton. 4 We Appeal: 12-4540 Doc: 34 dispense with contentions are Filed: 02/06/2013 oral argument adequately Pg: 5 of 5 because presented in the the facts and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5

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?