US v. Travis Strickland

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00378-WO-1,7:98-cr-00082-BO-14 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999606460]. [14-4769]

Appeal: 14-4769

Doc: 31

Filed: 06/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4769

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TRAVIS STRICKLAND,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge.
(1:11-cr-00378-WO-1; 7:98-cr-00082BO-14)

Submitted:

June 18, 2015

Decided:

June 22, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Todd Allen Smith, LAW OFFICE OF TODD ALLEN SMITH, Graham, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Clifton Thomas Barrett, Harry L.
Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4769

Doc: 31

Filed: 06/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
A

jury

convicted

Travis

Strickland

of

conspiracy

to

distribute cocaine and cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012), and
use of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2012).

He was sentenced to 248 months’

imprisonment, followed by a 5-year term of supervised release.
The district court subsequently granted Strickland a sentence
reduction

to

probation

officer

supervised

time

served.

After

petitioned

release.

At

for

the

his

release,

revocation

revocation

admitted the alleged violations.

The

Strickland’s

of

Strickland’s

hearing,

Strickland

district court sentenced

him to 9 months of imprisonment, followed by a 3-year term of
supervised
pursuant

release.
to

Anders

questioning
reasonable.

On

appeal,

v.

whether

counsel

California,

Strickland’s

has

386

filed

U.S.

a

738

revocation

brief

(1967),

sentence

is

Strickland was informed of his right to file a pro

se supplemental brief, but he has not done so.

Finding no

error, we affirm.
“A

district

court

has

broad

discretion

when

sentence upon revocation of supervised release.”
v.

Webb,

738

F.3d

638,

sentence

that

“is

‘plainly

unreasonable’”

640

within

(4th

the

will

Cir.

statutory
be

A

maximum
on

a

United States

2013).

affirmed

imposing

revocation

and

appeal.

is

not
Id.

(quoting United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir.
2

Appeal: 14-4769

Doc: 31

2006)).

Filed: 06/22/2015

In

reasonableness,

A

sentence,

utilizing

considerations”
sentence.

evaluating

so

Pg: 3 of 4

employed

a

“the
in

we

procedural

evaluating

assess
and

an

it

for

substantive

original

criminal

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438.

revocation

sentence

is

procedurally

reasonable

if

the

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

(2012)

factors

enumerated

(2012).

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439.

provide

an

explanation

for

in

18

U.S.C.

§

3583(e)

The district court also must

its

chosen

sentence,

but

the

explanation “need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a
revocation

sentence

as

it

must

be

when

imposing

a

post-

conviction sentence.”

United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544,

547 (4th Cir. 2010).

A revocation sentence is substantively

reasonable

if

concluding

that

be

district

the

court

defendant

procedurally

or

states

should

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.

imposed.
to

the

a

proper

receive

the

basis

for

sentence

Only if we find a sentence

substantively

unreasonable

determine whether the sentence is “plainly” so.

will

we

Id. at 439.

Here, the district court considered the parties’ arguments,
Strickland’s

allocution,

the

statutory

maximum

sentence

upon

revocation, and the relevant statutory factors before sentencing
Strickland
district

at
court

the

top

further

of

the

policy

provided
3

an

statement
explanation

range.
tailored

The
to

Appeal: 14-4769

Doc: 31

Strickland,

focusing

circumstances
therefore

Filed: 06/22/2015

of

specifically

his

conclude

Pg: 4 of 4

violations
that

of

on

the

nature
release.

supervised

Strickland’s

and
We

sentence

is

neither

procedurally nor substantively unreasonable and, therefore, is
not plainly so.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with the
requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.
court.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
This court requires that counsel inform Strickland, in

writing,

of

the

right

to

petition

United States for further review.

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

If Strickland 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

state that a copy thereof was served on Strickland.

must

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4