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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [1000029210].. [15-4683]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-4683 Doc: 38 Filed: 02/23/2017 Pg: 1 of 5 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4683 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GEORGE ANTONIO MATTOCKS, Defendant -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) Submitted: February 17, 2017 Before GREGORY, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: and WYNN and February 23, 2017 HARRIS, Circuit Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. John 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-4683 Doc: 38 Filed: 02/23/2017 Pg: 2 of 5 PER CURIAM: George statutory Antonio maximum Mattocks sentence appeals the the 47-month district court revocation of his term of supervised release. and imposed 29-day upon Mattocks contends that his sentence is plainly unreasonable because the district court committed procedural explain its sentence. error in failing to adequately We agree, and we vacate the district court’s judgment and remand for resentencing. “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). plainly unreasonable.” “When Id. reviewing unreasonable, we (internal whether must first a quotation revocation determine marks sentence whether it is 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. Crudup, sentence 461 is F.3d 433, 438 procedurally (4th Cir. reasonable 2006). if the United States v. A revocation district court adequately explains the sentence after considering the Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 2 Appeal: 15-4683 Doc: 38 Filed: 02/23/2017 (2012) factors. 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 failing to “Regardless below, or adequately of whether explain the its district within-Guidelines court sentence, it selected sentence. imposes must an place 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 U.S. 38, 50 (2007)); see also Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547. court need revocation not be sentence as detailed as it or must specific when when imposing be “A imposing a 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). 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 should address the party’s rejected those arguments.” arguments and explain why he has (internal quotation marks omitted)). 3 Appeal: 15-4683 Doc: 38 Filed: 02/23/2017 Pg: 4 of 5 Additionally, the district court failed to explain why it was necessary to impose a sentence at the statutory maximum, as opposed to a different sentence above the 3- to 9-month policy statement range. See United States v. Helton, 782 F.3d 148, 151-52 2015) (4th Cir. (“For a sentence to be procedurally 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 outside of relevant the [policy sentencing statement] purposes set range better forth in serves the § 3553(a).” (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)). Having concluded that Mattocks’ sentence is unreasonable, we must determine whether it is plainly so. unreasonable, law.” a Thompson, sentence 595 must F.3d “run afoul 548. The at of To be plainly clearly requirement settled that a district court offer a sufficient explanation for a sentence well above the policy statement range is well settled in this Circuit. * 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 resentencing. We dispense with oral argument because the facts * Because we conclude that Mattocks’ sentence is procedurally unreasonable, we do not address the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. 4 Appeal: 15-4683 Doc: 38 Filed: 02/23/2017 Pg: 5 of 5 and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED 5

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?