US v. Terrell Truesdale

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:00-cr-00151-TDS-3 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999696691].. [15-4224]

Appeal: 15-4224

Doc: 29

Filed: 11/10/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4224

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TERRELL MARQUI TRUESDALE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:00-cr-00151-TDS-3)

Submitted:

November 5, 2015

Decided:

November 10, 2015

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Neal Gary Rosensweig, NEAL GARY ROSENSWEIG, P.A., Hollywood,
Florida, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4224

Doc: 29

Filed: 11/10/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Terrell

Marqui

Truesdale

appeals

the

district

court’s

judgment revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing
him

to

24

months’

release.

Counsel

California,

386

meritorious

issues

imprisonment

consideration

filed

U.S.

738

for

whether

a

and

brief

(1967),

appeal,

the

32

pursuant

stating

but

sentence

months’

was

to

that

raising

supervised

there

for

plainly

Anders

the

are

v.
no

court’s

unreasonable.

Although advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, Truesdale has not done so.
a brief.
“A

The Government has not filed

Following our careful review of the record, we affirm.
district

sentence

upon

court

has

revocation

broad
of

discretion

supervised

when

imposing

a

release.”

United

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

We will

affirm a revocation sentence if it falls within the prescribed
statutory range and is not plainly unreasonable.
this

determination,

we

first

consider

whether

Id.

In making

the

sentence

imposed is procedurally or substantively unreasonable, applying
the same general considerations employed in review of original
criminal sentences.
(4th Cir. 2006).

United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438

“This initial inquiry takes a more deferential

appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of
discretion

than

reasonableness

G]uidelines sentences.”

review

for

[Sentencing

United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652,
2

Appeal: 15-4224

Doc: 29

Filed: 11/10/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

656 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Only if

we find the sentence unreasonable will we consider whether it is
“plainly” so.
A

Id. at 657 (internal quotation marks omitted).

supervised

reasonable

if

release

the

revocation

district

sentence

court

is

procedurally

considered

the

policy

statements contained in Chapter Seven of the Guidelines and the
18

U.S.C.

§

sentences.
A

3553(a)

factors

applicable

to

revocation

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012); Webb, 738 F.3d at 641.

revocation

district

(2012)

sentence

court

defendant

stated

should

is
a

receive

statutory maximum.

substantively
proper
the

basis

sentence

reasonable

the

concluding

for

if

the

imposed,

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.

up

to

Our review reveals

no procedural or substantive errors by the district court.
thus

conclude

that

Truesdale’s

sentence

the

is

not

We

plainly

unreasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and
have

found

no

meritorious

issues

for

appeal.

We

therefore

affirm the district court’s judgment and commitment order.

This

court requires that counsel inform Truesdale, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Truesdale requests that a petition be filed,

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation.

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
3

Appeal: 15-4224

Doc: 29

Filed: 11/10/2015

was served on Truesdale.

Pg: 4 of 4

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials

before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4