US v. Curtis Lamonte Gray

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:99-cr-00298-JAB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999273157].. [13-4353]

Appeal: 13-4353

Doc: 26

Filed: 01/08/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4353

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CURTIS LAMONTE GRAY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:99-cr-00298-JAB-1)

Submitted:

December 26, 2013

Decided:

January 8, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael E. Archenbronn, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
Michael
A.
DeFranco,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4353

Doc: 26

Filed: 01/08/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Curtis Lamonte Gray appeals the district court’s order
revoking

his

supervised

months’ imprisonment.

release

and

sentencing

him

to

sixty

Gray argues that his revocation sentence

is procedurally unreasonable because the district court created
an unwarranted sentencing disparity when it failed to take into
account that Gray was sentenced for the original offense before
the effective date of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”),
Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372, and thus did not receive a
similar sentence to those individuals who committed the same
offense but were sentenced after the FSA.
This

court

will

affirm

a

We affirm.

sentence

imposed

after

revocation of supervised release if the sentence is within the
applicable statutory maximum and is not “plainly unreasonable.”
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437, 439-40 (4th Cir.
2006).

In determining whether a revocation sentence is “plainly

unreasonable,”

the

unreasonableness,

court

first

“follow[ing]

assesses

generally

the
the

sentence

for

procedural

and

substantive considerations that [it] employ[s] in [its] review
of original sentences[.]”
A

revocation

Id. at 438.

sentence

is

procedurally

reasonable

if

the district court has considered both the applicable 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2012) factors and the policy statements contained in
Chapter Seven of the Guidelines.
2

Id.

A revocation sentence is

Appeal: 13-4353

Doc: 26

Filed: 01/08/2014

Pg: 3 of 4

substantively reasonable if the district court stated a proper
basis for concluding the defendant should receive the sentence
imposed, up to the statutory maximum.

Id.

Only if a sentence

is found procedurally or substantively unreasonable will this
court

“then

unreasonable.”
Gray

decide

whether

the

sentence

is

plainly

Id. at 439.
argues

that

the

district

court

erred

in

calculating his Guidelines range by failing to take into account
that he was sentenced prior to the enactment of the FSA, which
would have lowered the grade of his original felony conviction,
and thus lowered his Guidelines sentencing range.

Therefore,

Gray contends that he received a disparate sentence from other
offenders who committed the same offense but were sentenced with
the benefit of the FSA.
retroactively

This court has held that the FSA is not

applicable

to

offenders,

like

Gray,

sentencing pre-dated the effective date of the statute.

whose
United

States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237, 248-49 (4th Cir. 2011) (“We
agree with all eight circuits that have ruled on the issue that
the FSA contains no express statement of retroactivity, nor can
any such intent be inferred from its language.”).

Thus, we

conclude the FSA had no bearing on Gray’s Guidelines range.

As

to the substantive reasonableness of Gray’s sentence, we have
examined the transcript of the sentencing hearing and conclude
that

the

district

court’s

statements
3

adequately

support

the

Appeal: 13-4353

Doc: 26

sentence

it

Filed: 01/08/2014

imposed.

court’s judgment.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

Pg: 4 of 4

Accordingly,

we

affirm

the

district

We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4