US v. Jessee Turner

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:13-cr-00005-JPJ-PMS-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999683800]. [15-4124]

Appeal: 15-4124

Doc: 27

Filed: 10/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4124

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JESSEE JAMES TURNER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap.
James P. Jones,
District Judge. (2:13-cr-00005-JPJ-PMS-1)

Submitted:

October 13, 2015

Before WILKINSON and
Senior Circuit Judge.

KEENAN,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

October 22, 2015

and

HAMILTON,

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine
Lee, Research and Writing Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellant.
Anthony P. Giorno, United States Attorney, Jean B.
Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4124

Doc: 27

Filed: 10/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Jessee James Turner appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking supervised release and sentencing him to a 12-month
sentence consecutive to his state sentence.

He contends that

the length of the sentence and the decision to run the sentence
consecutively

to

an

undischarged

state

sentence

procedurally and substantively unreasonable.

are

both

Finding no error,

we affirm.
“A

district

sentence

upon

court

has

revocation

broad
of

discretion

supervised

when

release.”

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

examining

a

revocation

sentence,

imposing

we

a

United

Accordingly,

“take[]

a

more

deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the
exercise

of

discretion

than

reasonableness

review

for

[Sentencing Guidelines] sentences.”

United States v. Moulden,

478

(internal

F.3d

652,

omitted).

We

656
will

(4th

Cir.

affirm

a

2007)

revocation

quotation

sentence

that

marks
falls

within the statutory maximum, unless the sentence is “plainly
unreasonable.”
(4th

Cir.

sentence

United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40

2006).
for

In

conducting

reasonableness,

this

utilizing

review,
“the

we

assess

the

procedural

and

substantive considerations” employed in evaluating an original
criminal sentence.

Id. at 438.

2

Only if a sentence is found

Appeal: 15-4124

Doc: 27

Filed: 10/22/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

procedurally or substantively unreasonable will we “then decide
whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable.”
A

revocation

sentence

is

procedurally

Id. at 439.
reasonable

if

the

district court properly calculated the policy statement range
contained in Chapter Seven of the Guidelines and considered the
Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2012) factors.

Id. at 439; United States v. Padgett,

788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015).

A revocation sentence is

substantively reasonable if the court states a proper basis for
concluding

that

the

defendant

should

imposed, up to the statutory maximum.

receive

the

sentence

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.

Under Chapter Seven, a court should fashion a revocation
sentence

to

trust.”

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ch. 7, pt. A(3)(b)

(2014).

“sanction

Under

18

primarily

U.S.C.

the

§ 3583(e)

defendant’s

(2012),

a

breach

court

of

should

consider designated factors in § 3553(a) prior to imposing a
revocation sentence, including the nature and circumstances of
the

offense

and

the

history

and

characteristics

of

the

defendant, the sentencing range established by the applicable
policy statements, the need to deter future criminal conduct,
and

the

need

to

protect

the

public

from

further

criminal

activity.
We

conclude

that

the

district

court

did

not

improperly

emphasize any particular factor and that it properly considered
3

Appeal: 15-4124

Doc: 27

Filed: 10/22/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

Turner’s breach of trust in deciding to impose a sentence at the
top of the policy statement range.

Also, we discern no error in

the district court’s decision to order the revocation sentence
to run consecutively to an undischarged state sentence.

See

USSG § 7B1.3(f), p.s.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4