US v. Patrick Taylor

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:09-cr-00785-HMH-7 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999222064].. [13-4319]

Appeal: 13-4319

Doc: 21

Filed: 10/21/2013

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4319

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PATRICK LEE EDWARD TAYLOR,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:09-cr-00785-HMH-7)

Submitted:

October 10, 2013

Decided:

October 21, 2013

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lora E. Collins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant.
William Jacob Watkins, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4319

Doc: 21

Filed: 10/21/2013

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Patrick
imposed

sentence

Lee

Edward

upon

Taylor

revocation

of

appeals
his

the

twelve-month

supervised

release.

Taylor’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386

U.S.

738

(1967),

stating

that

there

are

no

meritorious

grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the district court
abused its discretion by revoking Taylor’s supervised release
and imposing a twelve-month sentence.

Although advised of his

right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Taylor has not done
so. *

For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
A decision to revoke a defendant’s supervised release

is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

United States v. Pregent,

190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999).

The district court need only

find

of

a

violation

of

a

condition

preponderance of the evidence.
Supp. 2013).

supervised

release

by

a

18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West

In this case, Taylor admitted that he violated the

*

Taylor has filed a letter with this court, questioning the
propriety of the district court’s rejection of counsel’s request
for service of the revocation sentence to commence immediately.
But, at the time of the revocation hearing, Taylor was in
federal court on a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum.
Accordingly, he was not then in federal custody, nor was he
capable of being taken into federal custody, because he was
already in state custody.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a) (2006) (“A
sentence to a term of imprisonment commences on the date the
defendant
is
received
in
custody
awaiting
transportation
to . . . the official detention facility at which the sentence
is to be served.”).
We therefore conclude the district court
properly denied Taylor’s request.
See United States v. Hayes,
535 F.3d 907, 910 (8th Cir. 2008).
2

Appeal: 13-4319

Doc: 21

conditions

Filed: 10/21/2013

of

supervision.

Pg: 3 of 5

We

accordingly

find

no

abuse

of

discretion in the district court’s decision to revoke Taylor’s
supervised release.
Turning to Taylor’s sentence, we will not disturb a
sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release that is
within

the

prescribed

unreasonable.
(4th

Cir.

statutory

range

and

is

not

plainly

United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437–39

2006).

In

making

this

determination,

“we

follow

generally the procedural and substantive considerations” used in
reviewing original sentences.

Id. at 438.

A sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district
court has considered the policy statements contained in Chapter
Seven of the Guidelines and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006) factors, id. at 440, and has adequately explained the
sentence chosen, though it need not explain the sentence in as
much

detail

States

v.

sentence

as

when

Thompson,
is

imposing

the

595

544,

F.3d

substantively

original
547

reasonable

if

sentence.

(4th

Cir.

the

United

2010).

district

A

court

states a proper basis for its imposition of a sentence up to the
statutory maximum.

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.

If, based on this

review, we decide that the sentence is not unreasonable, we will
affirm.

Id. at 439.
In the initial inquiry, we take a more deferential

posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion
3

Appeal: 13-4319

Doc: 21

Filed: 10/21/2013

Pg: 4 of 5

than when we apply the reasonableness review to post-conviction
Guidelines sentences.
656 (4th Cir. 2007).

United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652,
Only if we find the sentence unreasonable

must we decide whether it is “plainly” so.

Id. at 657.

Although counsel questions whether there is any error
rendering Taylor’s sentence plainly unreasonable, she identifies
no such error.

Indeed, as counsel acknowledges, the district

court properly calculated the applicable policy statement range
and sentenced Taylor to twelve months’ imprisonment, a sentence
within

the

policy

statement

range

and

below

the

statutory

maximum.

18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual

7B1.4(a)

§

(2009),

p.s.

Further,

our

review

of

the

record confirms that there was no sentencing error warranting
correction on plain error review.

See United States v. Knight,

606 F.3d 171, 178 (4th Cir. 2010).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.

We therefore affirm the judgment.

This court requires

that counsel inform Taylor, in writing, of his right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.

If

Taylor requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move
in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

representation.

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served
4

Appeal: 13-4319

Doc: 21

on Taylor.
legal
before

Pg: 5 of 5

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

Filed: 10/21/2013

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

5