US v. Travis Allen
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:10-cr-00144-D-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [15-4168]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
TRAVIS SHONTA ALLEN, a/k/a Bushwick,
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. (5:10-cr-00144-D-1)
October 1, 2015
October 13, 2015
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and FLOYD, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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.
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2012).
district court sentenced Allen to 51 months of imprisonment,
followed by 3 years of supervised release.
release from incarceration, he incurred several state charges
court revoked his supervised release and sentenced Allen to 24
months of imprisonment, and he now appeals.
Finding no error,
We review a sentence imposed as a
result of a supervised release violation to determine whether
the sentence is plainly unreasonable.
United States v. Crudup,
461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006).
The first step in this
unreasonable; in making this determination, we generally follow
Id. at 438.
Although a district court must consider the policy
statements in Chapter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines along
discretion to revoke its previous sentence and impose a term of
Pg: 3 of 3
imprisonment up to the statutory maximum.”
Id. at 439 (internal
quotation marks omitted).
unreasonable, we will not proceed to the second prong of the
analysis—whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable.
have reviewed the record and conclude that Allen has failed to
demonstrate that the sentence is substantively unreasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?