US v. James Johnson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:02-cr-00036-D-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999327560].. [13-4728]

Appeal: 13-4728

Doc: 20

Filed: 04/01/2014

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4728

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES THOMAS LYNWOOD JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:02-cr-00036-D-2)

Submitted:

March 17, 2014

Decided:

April 1, 2014

Before KING, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
First
Assistant
Federal
Public
Defender,
Raleigh,
North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Thomas G. Walker, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Yvonne Watford-McKinney,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4728

Doc: 20

Filed: 04/01/2014

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
James

Thomas

Lynwood

Johnson

appeals

the

district

court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a
twenty-four-month

prison

term.

Johnson

challenges

sentence, arguing that it is plainly unreasonable.
A
sentence

district

upon

court

revoking

has
a

broad

We affirm.

discretion

defendant’s

this

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 applicable statutory maximum and not
“plainly unreasonable.”
437,

439–40

(4th

United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433,

Cir.

2006).

In

determining

whether

a

revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we first assess the
sentence

for

unreasonableness,

“follow[ing]

generally

the

procedural and substantive considerations that we employ in our
review of original sentences.”
A
procedurally

supervised
reasonable

Id. at 438.

release
if

the

revocation

district

sentence

court

is

considered

the

Sentencing Guidelines’ Chapter 7 advisory policy statements and
the

18

U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)

(2012)

factors

it

is

permitted

consider in a supervised release revocation case.
§ 3583(e) (2012); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439.

to

18 U.S.C.

Although a district

court need not explain the reasons for imposing a revocation
sentence

in

as

much

detail

as
2

when

it

imposes

an

original

Appeal: 13-4728

Doc: 20

Filed: 04/01/2014

Pg: 3 of 5

sentence, it “still must provide a statement of reasons for the
sentence

imposed.”

quotation

marks

Thompson,

omitted).

595

The

F.3d

reasons

at

547

(internal

articulated

by

the

district court for a given revocation sentence, however, need
not be “couched in the precise language of § 3553(a),” so long
as

the

“reasons

consideration

can

be

under

[the defendant’s]

matched

[§ 3553(a)]

particular

to

a

and

factor
[were]

situation.”

appropriate
clearly

for
to

States

United

tied

v.

Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 658 (4th Cir. 2007).
A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if
the

district

defendant

court

should

receive

statutory maximum.
is

found

“then

stated

Id. at 439.

proper

the

basis

sentence

for

whether

or
the

substantively
sentence

is

concluding

imposed,

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.

procedurally

decide

a

up

the

to

the

Only if a sentence

unreasonable
plainly

will

we

unreasonable.”

A sentence is plainly unreasonable if it is clearly

or obviously unreasonable.
In

this

case,

Id.
there

is

no

dispute

that

Johnson’s

twenty-four-month prison sentence does not exceed the applicable
statutory
The

maximum.

district

court

18

U.S.C.

§§ 3559(a),

considered

the

advisory

3583(e)(3)
policy

(2012).

statement

range of eighteen to twenty-four months’ imprisonment, see U.S.
Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual

(“USSG”)

§§ 7B1.1(a)(1),

(b),

7B1.4(a), p.s (2012), and heard and considered argument from
3

Appeal: 13-4728

Doc: 20

counsel

Filed: 04/01/2014

for

On appeal,
court’s

both

Johnson

parties

Pg: 4 of 5

and

challenges

explanation

for

the

allocution

the

adequacy

sentence.

from
of

After

Johnson.

the

district

review

of

the

parties’ briefs and the record, we reject Johnson’s challenge.
In rejecting defense counsel’s request for a sentence
at the low end of the policy statement range, the district court
also

considered

Johnson’s

history

and

characteristics,

the

nature and circumstances of his violative behavior, and the need
for the revocation sentence to sanction his breach of trust,
see 18 U.S.C. § 3353(a)(1); USSG Ch. 7, Pt. A, introductory cmt.
3(b)

(“[A]t

revocation

the

[district]

court

should

sanction

primarily the defendant’s breach of trust.”), and explained that
these factors supported the imposition of a sentence at the top
of the policy statement range.
We
explained

conclude

its

that

rationale

the

for

district

imposing

the

court

adequately

twenty-four-month

prison sentence and relied on proper considerations in doing so.
Based

on

the

broad

discretion

that

a

district

court

has

to

revoke a term of supervised release and impose a prison term up
to

and

sentence

including
is

not

the

statutory

unreasonable.

maximum,

Johnson’s

Therefore,

we

revocation

conclude

that

Johnson’s sentence is not plainly unreasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument
4

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 13-4728

Doc: 20

contentions

are

Filed: 04/01/2014

adequately

Pg: 5 of 5

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5