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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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?