US v. George Antonio Mattock

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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