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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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