US v. Maurice Haire

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:03-cr-00050-F-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999910949]. [15-4537]

Appeal: 15-4537

Doc: 29

Filed: 08/16/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4537

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MAURICE DEVLON HAIRE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:03-cr-00050-F-1)

Submitted:

July 25, 2016

Decided:

August 16, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, Acting 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-4537

Doc: 29

Filed: 08/16/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Maurice Devlon Haire appeals the 60-month sentence imposed
upon the revocation of supervised release.

We affirm.

We will uphold “a revocation sentence if it is within the
statutory maximum and is not ‘plainly unreasonable.’
States

v.

Webb,

738

F.3d

638,

640

(4th

Cir.

United

2013)

(quoting

United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006)).
Haire conceded that he received the statutory maximum term of
imprisonment.

The remaining question therefore is whether the

sentence is plainly unreasonable.
“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.
Only if we find a sentence to be unreasonable will we

consider whether it is “plainly” so.

United States v. Crudup,

461 F.3d at 440.
A

revocation

district

court

sentence

expressly

is

procedurally

considered

the

reasonable

Chapter

Seven

if

the

policy

statement range and the applicable statutory sentencing factors.
Id.

A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the

court stated a proper basis for concluding that the defendant
should
maximum.

receive
Id.

the

sentence

imposed,

up

to

the

statutory

“A court need not be as detailed or specific when

imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a
2

Appeal: 15-4537

Doc: 29

Filed: 08/16/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

post-conviction sentence, but it still ‘must provide a statement
of

reasons

for

the

sentence

imposed.’”

United

States

v.

Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (quoting United States v. Moulden, 478
F.3d at 657).
We

conclude

that

Haire’s

substantively reasonable.

sentence

is

procedurally

and

The district court stated that it had

considered relevant § 3553(a) factors, and the court was clearly
aware of Haire’s policy statement range.

Further, the court

provided a sufficiently individualized assessment in fashioning
Haire’s

revocation

sentence.

In

this

regard,

the

court

was

troubled both by Haire’s criminal record and his persistent drug
use.

Given his repeated use of drugs, the court found that

Haire

had

made

no

meaningful

effort

towards

rehabilitation,

despite his argument to the contrary.
We

therefore

affirm.

We

dispense

with

oral

argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3