US v. Kevin Walker

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to file supplemental brief(s) [999237221-2]; granting Motion to withdraw motions [999175497-2]; terminating Motion to file supplemental brief(s) [999124496-2], terminating Motion to file supplemental brief(s) [999122285-2] Originating case number: 4:95-cr-00037-RAJ-3 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999255003].. [13-4328]

Appeal: 13-4328

Doc: 53

Filed: 12/09/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4328

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KEVIN WALKER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News.
Raymond A. Jackson,
District Judge. (4:95-cr-00037-RAJ-3)

Submitted:

November 22, 2013

Decided:

December 9, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Ratliff, Mobile, Alabama, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente,
Acting United States Attorney, Eric M. Hurt, Assistant United
States Attorney, Alexander S. Mackler, Third Year Law Student,
Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4328

Doc: 53

Filed: 12/09/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
In

1997,

Kevin

Lamont

Walker

pleaded

guilty

to

conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846 (2006).

The district court originally sentenced Walker to

262 months of imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised
release,

but

later

reduced

the

sentence

imprisonment on the Government’s motion.
from

incarceration,

supervised

release

the
and

incarceration,

followed

Following

second

his

district
sentenced

by

four

release,

120

months

of

After Walker’s release

court
him

years

the

to

revoked

to
of

twelve

Walker’s
months

supervised

district

court

of

release.

found

that

Walker had again violated the terms of his supervised release.
The court revoked Walker’s supervised release and sentenced him
to twenty-four months of imprisonment.

Walker appeals.

Finding

no error, we affirm.
Walker

argues

that

the

district

court

improperly

considered 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors that are not to be
considered when determining a revocation sentence.

We review a

sentence imposed on revocation to determine whether the sentence
was plainly unreasonable.
433,

437

(4th

Cir.

2006).

United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d
Although

a

district

court

must

consider the policy statements in Chapter Seven of the United
States

Sentencing

Guidelines

along

with

the

statutory

requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (2006) and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
2

Appeal: 13-4328

Doc: 53

Filed: 12/09/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

(2006), “the court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke its
previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the
statutory maximum.”
citation

Id. at 439 (internal quotation marks and

omitted).

We

have

reviewed

the

record

and

have

considered Walker’s arguments and discern no reversible error.
We

therefore

conclude

that

Walker’s

sentence

is

not

plainly

unreasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.

We

also grant Walker’s motion filed August 19, 2013 to the extent
it seeks to withdraw his prior motions filed on June 4 and 6,
2013.

We deny the motion to the extent that Walker seeks to

file a pro se supplemental brief, and deny Walker’s November 8,
2013, motion to file a pro se reply brief.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

We dispense with

legal
before

contentions
the

court

are
and

argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3