US v. Steven Lavon Walker

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:04-cr-00146-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999750009].. [15-4200]

Appeal: 15-4200

Doc: 33

Filed: 02/05/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4200

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEVEN LAVON WALKER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington.
Robert C. Chambers,
Chief District Judge. (3:04-cr-00146-1)

Submitted:

January 27, 2016

Decided:

February 5, 2016

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Abraham Julian Saad, SAAD LAW OFFICE, Huntington, West Virginia,
for Appellant.
R. Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney,
Joshua C. Hanks, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston,
West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4200

Doc: 33

Filed: 02/05/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Steven Lavon Walker appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 57 months’
imprisonment,

to

offense

constituted

that

run

consecutively
the

to

his

supervised

sentence
release

Walker argues that this sentence is unreasonable.

for

the

violation.
Finding no

error, we affirm.
“A

district

court

has

broad

discretion

when

sentence upon revocation of supervised release.”
v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013).

imposing

a

United States

We will affirm a

revocation sentence that is within the statutory maximum and not
“plainly unreasonable.”
437-38 (4th Cir. 2006). ∗

United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433,
In conducting this review, we assess

the sentence for reasonableness, utilizing “the procedural and
substantive considerations” employed in evaluating an original
criminal sentence.

Id. at 438.

Only if a sentence is found

procedurally or substantively unreasonable will we “then decide
∗

To the extent Walker argues that Crudup was wrongly
decided and that we should analyze revocation sentences under
the same reasonableness standard we apply to initial sentences,
we lack authority to consider this challenge. See United States
v. Rivers, 595 F.3d 558, 564 n.3 (4th Cir. 2010) (“A panel of
this court cannot overrule, explicitly or implicitly, the
precedent set by a prior panel of this court.” (alteration and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
Moreover, even if we were
to apply the standard advocated by Walker, it would have no
effect on the disposition of this case because Walker’s sentence
is reasonable.

2

Appeal: 15-4200

Doc: 33

Filed: 02/05/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable.”
sentence

that

is

within

a

properly

range is presumed reasonable.
Having
explanation

reviewed
of

the

the

Id. at 439.

calculated

Chapter

A

Seven

Webb, 738 F.3d at 642.

record

revocation

and

the

sentence,

district
we

court’s

conclude

that

Walker’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable.
To the extent Walker argues that the district court improperly
considered the need to punish him, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(c) (2012), we find that the court’s explanation of the
revocation sentence does not support this contention.
We affirm the district court’s judgment.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with
contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3