US v. Travis Allen

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:10-cr-00144-D-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999676344].. [15-4168]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-4168 Doc: 23 Filed: 10/13/2015 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4168 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. TRAVIS SHONTA ALLEN, a/k/a Bushwick,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) Submitted: October 1, 2015 Decided: 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-4168 Doc: 23 Filed: 10/13/2015 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Travis Shonta Allen pleaded guilty to distribution cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2012). of The district court sentenced Allen to 51 months of imprisonment, followed by 3 years of supervised release. Following Allen’s release from incarceration, he incurred several state charges for drug distribution and firearm possession. The district court revoked his supervised release and sentenced Allen to 24 months of imprisonment, and he now appeals. Finding no error, we affirm. On appeal, Allen argues substantively unreasonable. that the sentence is plainly 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 analysis is a determination of whether the sentence is unreasonable; in making this determination, we generally follow the procedural reviewing and original Id. at 438. substantive sentences, considerations subject to some employed in modifications. Although a district court must consider the policy statements in Chapter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines along with the statutory factors, “the court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke its previous sentence and impose a term of 2 Appeal: 15-4168 Doc: 23 Filed: 10/13/2015 Pg: 3 of 3 imprisonment up to the statutory maximum.” Id. at 439 (internal quotation marks omitted). If a sentence imposed after a revocation is not unreasonable, we will not proceed to the second prong of the analysis—whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. Id. We have reviewed the record and conclude that Allen has failed to demonstrate that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. follows, therefore, that the sentence is not It plainly unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

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?