US v. Dean Seager
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:06-cr-00967-PMD-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999783628].. [15-4502]
Appeal: 15-4502
Doc: 20
Filed: 03/29/2016
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4502
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEAN NELSON SEAGERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:06-cr-00967-PMD-1)
Submitted:
March 23, 2016
Decided:
March 29, 2016
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant.
Sean Kittrell, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-4502
Doc: 20
Filed: 03/29/2016
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Dean Nelson Seagers appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing him to a
term
of
24
months’
state sentence.
imprisonment,
to
run
concurrent
with
his
In accordance with Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), Seagers’ counsel has filed a brief certifying
that
there
are
no
meritorious
issues
for
appeal.
Although
informed of his right to file a pro se brief, Seagers has not
done so.
We affirm the district court’s judgment.
“We review a district court’s ultimate decision to revoke a
defendant’s supervised release for abuse of discretion.”
States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015).
United
Here, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Seagers’
supervised release because the revocation was based on Seagers’
arrest and convictions for several state narcotic offenses.
See
United States v. Spraglin, 418 F.3d 479, 480-81 (5th Cir. 2005)
(per curiam) (relying on constitutional protections afforded a
defendant
proof
at
for
a
criminal
criminal
trial,
conviction,
including
to
higher
conclude
standard
that
of
criminal
conviction pending appeal satisfies preponderance standard for
finding supervised release violation).
Turning
to
the
sentence
imposed
by
the
district
court,
“[w]e will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the
statutory
maximum
and
is
not
plainly
2
unreasonable.”
United
Appeal: 15-4502
Doc: 20
Filed: 03/29/2016
Pg: 3 of 4
States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
We first review the district court’s
sentence for “significant procedural error.”
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
Gall v. United
Next, we review the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence, “examin[ing] the totality of the
circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its
discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied
the standards set forth in § 3553(a),” United States v. GomezJimenez, 750 F.3d 370, 382 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks
omitted), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 305 (2014), as applicable to
a revocation of supervised release proceeding, see 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e).
When reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a
revocation sentence, an appellate court may apply a presumption
of
reasonableness
where
the
imposed
term
falls
Sentencing Guidelines policy statement range.
within
the
United States v.
Aplicano-Oyuela, 792 F.3d 416, 425 (4th Cir. 2015).
Finally,
because
term
Seagers
did
not
object
to
the
imposed
of
imprisonment before the district court, our review is for plain
error.
Webb, 738 F.3d at 640-41.
Our review of the record
reveals neither a procedural error nor anything overcoming the
applicable
presumption
of
reasonableness
that
accompanies
the
district court’s imposition of a within-Guidelines sentence.
In
accordance
with
Anders,
we
have
reviewed
the
entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
3
Appeal: 15-4502
appeal.
Doc: 20
We
Filed: 03/29/2016
therefore
affirm
Pg: 4 of 4
the
district
court’s
judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Seagers, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.
If Seagers 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 Seagers.
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
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?