US v. Elwood Gregory

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:04-cr-00030-HCM-FBS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999523289]. [14-4590]

Appeal: 14-4590

Doc: 31

Filed: 02/04/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4590

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ELWOOD S. GREGORY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (4:04-cr-00030-HCM-FBS-1)

Submitted:

January 28, 2015

Decided:

February 4, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L.
Bryant, Appellate Attorney, Rodolfo Cejas, II, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
Dana J.
Boente, United States Attorney, Eric M. Hurt, Assistant United
States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4590

Doc: 31

Filed: 02/04/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Elwood

S.

Gregory

appeals

the

district

court’s

judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to
twenty-one

months’

supervised

release.

plainly

imprisonment
Gregory

unreasonable

disregarded

because,

evidence

of

his

followed

contends
he

by

that

claims,

one

his

the

year

sentence

of
is

court

disability,

intellectual

district

which

prevents his sentence from accomplishing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012) goals for which the district court imposed it.

Finding

no error, we affirm.
“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a
sentence

upon

revocation

of

supervised

release.”

United

States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013).

We will

affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release
if

it

is

within

the

“plainly unreasonable.”
438

(4th

Cir.

2006).

applicable

statutory

maximum

and

not

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

determining

whether

a

revocation

sentence is plainly unreasonable, this court first assesses the
sentence

for

unreasonableness,

following

the

procedural

and

substantive considerations that are at issue during its review
of original sentences.

Id. at 438-39.

In this initial inquiry,

we take a more “deferential appellate posture concerning issues
of

fact

and

the

exercise

of

discretion

review for guidelines sentences.”
2

than

reasonableness

United States v. Moulden, 478

Appeal: 14-4590

F.3d

Doc: 31

652,

Filed: 02/04/2015

656

(4th

Cir.

Pg: 3 of 4

2007)

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).
A

supervised

revocation

reasonable

procedurally

release
if

district

the

sentence
court

is

properly

calculates the advisory policy statement range and explains the
sentence adequately after considering the policy statements and
the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

18 U.S.C. § 3583

(2012); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4, p.s. (2013)
(revocation
sentence

table);

is

Crudup,

F.3d

at

439.

reasonable

substantively

461

if

the

A

revocation

district

court

states a proper basis for concluding that the defendant should
receive

the

sentence

Crudup,

461

F.3d

at

imposed,

up

440.

to

Only

the

if

a

statutory
sentence

maximum.
is

found

procedurally or substantively unreasonable will we “then decide
whether

the

sentence

is

plainly

unreasonable.”

Id.

at

439

(emphasis omitted).
Initially, we find that the twenty-one month term of
imprisonment is not unreasonable.

In imposing it, the district

court

policy

considered

§ 3553(a)

the

factors,

appropriate

sufficiently

explained

statement
its

range

and

reasoning,

and

stated a proper basis for imposing this term of imprisonment.
With

respect

to

the

one-year

term

of

supervised

release imposed by the revocation sentence, our review of the
record discloses that the district court properly calculated the
3

Appeal: 14-4590

Doc: 31

Filed: 02/04/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

advisory policy statement range, adequately explained Gregory’s
term

of

supervised

release

after

considering

the

relevant

§ 3553(a) factors, and stated a proper basis for concluding that
Gregory should receive the term of supervised release imposed.
Contrary to Gregory’s assertions, the court did not disregard
evidence

of

his

intellectual

disability;

in

fact,

the

court

expressly relied on it when fashioning discretionary conditions
on

Gregory’s

supervised

release.

Accordingly,

we

find

no

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

We

procedural or substantive error in the sentence.

dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4