US v. James Thurman Daughtie

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:04-cr-00006-F-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999671084]. [15-4014]

Appeal: 15-4014

Doc: 29

Filed: 10/02/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES THURMAN DAUGHTIE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:04-cr-00006-F-1)

Submitted:

September 30, 2015

Decided:

October 2, 2015

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4014

Doc: 29

Filed: 10/02/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
James

Thurman

Daughtie

appeals

the

60–month

sentence

imposed following the revocation of his supervised release term.
Daughtie

argues

that

this

sentence

is

plainly

substantively

unreasonable because it was ordered to run consecutively to a
previously imposed state sentence of life plus 60 months.

We

affirm.
A

district

court

“has

broad

discretion

when

sentence upon revocation of supervised release.”
v.

Webb,

738

F.3d

638,

640

(4th

Cir.

imposing

a

United States

2013).

A

revocation

sentence that is both within the applicable statutory maximum
and

not

“plainly

unreasonable”

will

be

affirmed

on

appeal.

United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437–38 (4th Cir. 2006).
In

determining

whether

a

revocation

sentence

is

plainly

unreasonable, we first assess the sentence for reasonableness,
utilizing

“the

procedural

and

substantive

employed in evaluating an original sentence.
sentence

is

substantively

reasonable

if

considerations”
Id. at 438.

the

district

A

court

states “a proper basis” for concluding that the defendant should
receive the sentence imposed.

Id. at 440.

Only if we find a

sentence to be procedurally or substantively unreasonable will
we consider whether the sentence is “plainly” so.

Id. at 439.

Daughtie does not challenge the procedural reasonableness
of his sentence.

Rather, his sole argument on appeal is that
2

Appeal: 15-4014

Doc: 29

Filed: 10/02/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district
court imposed the sentence to run consecutively to his state
sentence rather than concurrently.

The policy statement set

forth in USSG § 7B1.3(f) specifically states that:
Any term of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation
of . . . supervised release shall be ordered to be
served consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment
that the defendant is serving, whether or not the
sentence of imprisonment being served resulted from
the conduct that is the basis of the revocation of
. . . supervised release.
Thus, in imposing a consecutive sentence, the district court
simply deferred to this policy statement; such deference, while
not

required,

was

more

than

proper.

See

United

States

v.

Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010) (“Though a district
court

must

consider

the

Chapter

Seven

policy

statements

and

other statutory provisions applicable to revocation sentences,
the

court

has

broad

discretion

to

impose

a

particular

sentence.”); see also United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652,
656-57

(4th

Cir.

2007)

(recognizing

that

Chapter

7

policy

statements are “‘helpful assistance,’” but that the court has
“broad

discretion”

in

sentencing

the

defendant

up

to

the

was

not

statutory maximum).
Accordingly,

we

find

that

Daughtie’s

sentence

substantively unreasonable and we therefore affirm.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

3

Appeal: 15-4014

Doc: 29

adequately

Filed: 10/02/2015

presented

in

the

Pg: 4 of 4

materials

before

the

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4