US v. George Antonio Mattock
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:05-cr-00179-F-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [15-4683]
Pg: 1 of 5
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
GEORGE ANTONIO MATTOCKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00179-F-1)
February 17, 2017
February 23, 2017
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Chief Appellate Attorney, Jennifer C. Leisten, Research &
Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Stuart Bruce, Acting United States Attorney, Jennifer P. MayParker, Phillip A. Rubin, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 5
revocation of his term of supervised release.
that his sentence is plainly unreasonable because the district
explain its sentence.
We agree, and we vacate the district
court’s judgment and remand for resentencing.
sentence upon revocation of supervised release.”
v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013).
“We will affirm a
revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is
unreasonable at all.”
United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544,
546 (4th Cir. 2010).
Our review of revocation sentences relies
on many of the same procedural and substantive considerations
that guide our review of original sentences.
United States v.
adequately explains the sentence after considering the Chapter
Seven policy statements and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
Pg: 3 of 5
Thompson, 595 F.3d at 546-47; see 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e) (2012).
We conclude that the district court procedurally erred in
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
U.S. 38, 50 (2007)); see also Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547.
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).
Here, the district court
failed to address Mattocks’ nonfrivolous argument that a lower
sentence was warranted given his positive employment history,
strong family support, and that he successfully completed over
four years of supervised release prior to his first violation.
See Carter, 564 F.3d at 328 (“Where the defendant . . . presents
nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a different sentence than that
set forth in the advisory [policy statements], a district judge
rejected those arguments.”
(internal quotation marks omitted)).
Pg: 4 of 5
Additionally, the district court failed to explain why it was
opposed to a different sentence above the 3- to 9-month policy
See United States v. Helton, 782 F.3d 148,
sound, a district judge must also consider the factors outlined
in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and articulate the reasons for selecting
the particular sentence, especially explaining why any sentence
(alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Having concluded that Mattocks’ sentence is unreasonable,
we must determine whether it is plainly so.
To be plainly
district court offer a sufficient explanation for a sentence
well above the policy statement range is well settled in this
See, e.g., Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547; Carter, 564 F.3d
at 328-30; Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-39.
Accordingly, we vacate Mattocks’ sentence and remand for
We dispense with oral argument because the facts
procedurally unreasonable, we do not address the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence.
Pg: 5 of 5
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional
VACATED AND REMANDED
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?