US v. Willie Saxby

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to expedite decision [999646055-2] Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00132-NCT-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999710167].. [15-4345]

Appeal: 15-4345

Doc: 29

Filed: 12/02/2015

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4345

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIE ANTHONY SAXBY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:11-cr-00132-NCT-1)

Submitted:

November 4, 2015

Decided:

December 2, 2015

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. McClellan, IVEY, MCCLELLAN, GATTON & SIEGMUND, LLP,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Robert Michael
Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4345

Doc: 29

Filed: 12/02/2015

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
In 2013, Willie Anthony Saxby pled guilty to passing and
possessing counterfeit currency, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472
(2012),

and

the

imprisonment,
release.

The

district

to

be

court

followed

district

court

sentenced

him

a

3-year

term

that

while

by

found

to

36

of

months’

supervised

Saxby

was

on

supervised release, he violated the terms of his release by (1)
failing to notify the probation officer ten days prior to moving
from

his

marijuana

approved
and

residence,

using

alcohol

and
in

(2)

testing

excess.

The

positive
district

for

court

sentenced Saxby to 12 months’ imprisonment and an additional 24
months’

supervised

release.

In

accordance

with

Anders

v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Saxby’s counsel has filed a
brief

certifying

appeal.
issues.

that

there

are

no

meritorious

grounds

for

Saxby has filed a supplemental brief raising several
We affirm the district court’s judgment.

To revoke supervised release, a district court need only
find a violation of a condition of release by a preponderance of
the evidence.
district

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2012).

court’s

ultimate

decision

to

revoke

supervised release for abuse of discretion.”
Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015).
factual findings are reviewed for clear error.
that

the

district

court’s

factual
2

“We review a

findings

a

defendant’s

United States v.
A district court’s
Id.
are

We conclude
not

clearly

Appeal: 15-4345

Doc: 29

Filed: 12/02/2015

Pg: 3 of 5

erroneous and that the court did not abuse its discretion in
revoking Saxby’s supervised release.
“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 if it is within the statutory maximum and is
not

plainly

omitted).

unreasonable.”

Id.

(internal

quotation

marks

Saxby’s sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment to be

followed

by

24

months’

statutory

maximum.

See

supervised
18

U.S.C.

release

is

within

§§ 3559(a)(3),

the

3583(b)(2),

(e)(3), (h) (2012).
“When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly
unreasonable, we must first determine whether it is unreasonable
at all.”
2010).

United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir.
A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the

district
considering

court
the

statements

and

factors.

Id.

“Regardless
below,

or

of

adequately
Sentencing
the
at

explains
Guidelines’

applicable
546-47;

whether

the

within-Guidelines

see

the

Chapter

18

U.S.C.

18

U.S.C.

district
sentence,

sentence

court
it

after

Seven

policy

§ 3553(a)

(2012)

§ 3583(e)
imposes
must

an

place

(2012).
above,
on

the

record an ‘individualized assessment’ based on the particular
facts of the case before it.”

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d

325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552
3

Appeal: 15-4345

U.S.

Doc: 29

38,

Filed: 12/02/2015

50

(2007)).

“A

Pg: 4 of 5

court

need

not

be

as

detailed

or

specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when
imposing a post-conviction sentence, but it still must provide a
statement of reasons for the sentence imposed.”

Thompson, 595

F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks omitted).

A revocation

sentence

is

substantively

reasonable

if

the

court

states

a

proper basis for concluding that the defendant should receive
the

sentence

imposed,

up

to

the

statutory

maximum.

States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 440 (4th Cir. 2006).

United

Only if we

find a sentence to be unreasonable will we consider whether it
is plainly so.

Id. at 439.

While the district court did not explicitly refer to the
Sentencing Guidelines’ Chapter Seven policy statements, Saxby’s
policy statement range, or the relevant § 3553(a) factors, the
district

court’s

rationale

surrounding its decision.

is

apparent

from

the

context

See United States v. Montes-Pineda,

445 F.3d 375, 381 (4th Cir. 2006).

Defense counsel advised the

district court of Saxby’s correct policy statement range of 8 to
14 months’ imprisonment, and the sentence imposed falls within
that range.
its

Additionally, the district court’s explanation of

sentence,

while

not

explicitly

mentioning

§ 3553(a),

referred to the nature and circumstances of Saxby’s violations
and the need for the sentence to deter future violations.
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(B).
4

See

Moreover, the district court

Appeal: 15-4345

Doc: 29

Filed: 12/02/2015

Pg: 5 of 5

offered an individualized explanation of why it was sentencing
Saxby to serve a term of imprisonment and an additional term of
supervised release.

Thus, we conclude that Saxby’s sentence is

reasonable.
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

record in this case, including the issues raised in Saxby’s pro
se brief, and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal.

We

therefore affirm the district court’s judgment and deny as moot
Saxby’s motion to expedite.

This court requires that counsel

inform Saxby, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court

of

the

United

States

for

further

review.

If

Saxby

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 was served on Saxby.
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

5