US v. Shamell Tate

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00358-CCE-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999778111].. [15-4543]

Appeal: 15-4543

Doc: 21

Filed: 03/21/2016

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4543

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAMELL DEVON TATE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00358-CCE-1)

Submitted:

March 17, 2016

Decided:

March 21, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James E. Quander, Jr., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4543

Doc: 21

Filed: 03/21/2016

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Shamell Devon Tate pled guilty to possession of ammunition
by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2012).
He was sentenced to 37 months’ imprisonment, followed by a 3year

term

engaged

of

in

revocation

supervised

release.

After

criminal

conduct,

leading

new
of

his

supervised

his

release,

to

a

At

the

release.

petition

hearing, Tate admitted the alleged violations.
court

sentenced

him

to

18

months’

subsequent supervised release.

Tate
for

revocation

The district

imprisonment

with

no

On appeal, counsel has filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but
seeking review of the revocation hearing and the reasonableness
of Tate’s revocation sentence.

Tate was informed of his right

to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
Finding no error, we affirm.
“We review a district court’s ultimate decision to revoke a
defendant’s supervised release for abuse of discretion” and its
“factual

findings

underlying

a

revocation

for

clear

error.”

United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015).
Here, Tate admitted to the violations of his supervised release
and noted no objection to any part of the hearing.
no

error

in

the

district

supervised release.

court’s

decision

to

We discern

revoke

Tate’s

Moreover, we conclude that the district
2

Appeal: 15-4543

Doc: 21

Filed: 03/21/2016

Pg: 3 of 5

court complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1 in
conducting Tate’s revocation hearing.
“A

district

court

has

broad

discretion

when

sentence upon revocation of supervised release.”
v.

Webb,

sentence

738

F.3d

that

“is

638,

640

within

(4th

the

Cir.

A

maximum

plainly unreasonable” will be affirmed on appeal.
quotation marks omitted).

a

United States

2013).

statutory

imposing

revocation

and

is

not

Id. (internal

In evaluating a revocation sentence,

we assess it for reasonableness, utilizing “the procedural and
substantive considerations” employed in evaluating an original
criminal sentence.
(4th

Cir.

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

2006).

reasonable

if

statements

the

A

revocation

district

contained

in

court

Chapter

sentence
has

is

procedurally

considered

Seven

of

the

the

policy

Sentencing

Guidelines and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors enumerated
in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012).

Id. at 439.

The district court also must provide an explanation for its
chosen sentence, but the explanation “need not be as detailed or
specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when
imposing

a

Thompson,

595

sentence

is

post-conviction
F.3d

544,

sentence.”

547

substantively

(4th

Cir.

reasonable

United
2010).

if

the

States
A

v.

revocation

district

court

states a proper basis for concluding that the defendant should
receive the sentence imposed.

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.
3

Only if

Appeal: 15-4543

Doc: 21

Filed: 03/21/2016

Pg: 4 of 5

we find a sentence procedurally or substantively unreasonable
will we determine whether the sentence is “plainly” so.

Id. at

439.
Here, the district court considered the parties’ arguments,
Tate’s

allocution,

and

the

relevant

statutory

factors

sentencing Tate within the policy statement range.

before

The district

court provided an explanation tailored to Tate, focusing on the
seriousness

of

his

violations

and

conditions of supervised release.
Tate’s

sentence

is

neither

his

history

of

violating

We therefore conclude that

procedurally

nor

substantively

unreasonable. We have examined the entire record in accordance
with the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious
issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the

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

If Tate 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 Tate.
facts

and

legal

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

4

adequately

presented

in

the

Appeal: 15-4543

Doc: 21

materials

before

Filed: 03/21/2016

this

court

Pg: 5 of 5

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

5