US v. Jamieo Simpson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:04-cr-00130-FDW-DSC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999840707].. [15-4701]

Appeal: 15-4701

Doc: 22

Filed: 06/02/2016

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4701

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMIEO SIMPSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:04-cr-00130-FDW-DSC-1)

Submitted:

May 20, 2016

Decided:

June 2, 2016

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew Collin Joseph, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Anthony J.
Enright, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4701

Doc: 22

Filed: 06/02/2016

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Jamieo Simpson appeals from the district court’s judgment
revoking

his

imprisonment
Simpson

probation
and

argues

unreasonable.

3

and

years

that

of

his

sentencing
supervised

48-month

him

to

48

release.

sentence

is

months’

On

appeal,

substantively

We affirm.

This court “will not disturb a district court’s revocation
sentence unless it falls outside the statutory maximum or is
otherwise ‘plainly unreasonable.’”

United States v. Padgett,

788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v.
Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006)) (addressing sentences
resulting

from

revocation

of

supervised

release);

see

United

States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 655 (4th Cir. 2007) (explaining
that
from

probation

revocation

revocation

determined

of

whether

sentences,

supervised

they

are

like

release,

“plainly

sentences
are

resulting

reviewed

unreasonable”).

to

“When

reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable,
we

must

first

determine

whether

it

is

unreasonable

at

all.”

United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010).
In making such a determination, “we strike a more deferential
appellate posture than we do when reviewing original sentences.”
Padgett, 788 F.3d at 373 (internal quotation marks omitted).
“Nonetheless,
considerations

that

the
guide

same

procedural

our

review
2

of

and
original

substantive
sentences

Appeal: 15-4701

Doc: 22

inform

our

Filed: 06/02/2016

review

of

Pg: 3 of 5

revocation

sentences.”

quotation marks and alteration omitted).

Id.

(internal

A probation revocation

sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court has
considered
statement

the

Guidelines’

range

and

the

Chapter

18

advisory

§ 3553(a)

U.S.C.

Seven

(2012)

policy
factors,

see 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a) (2012); Moulden, 478 F.3d at 656, and
has adequately explained the sentence chosen, although it need
not explain the sentence in as much detail as when imposing an
original sentence.
sentence
states

is
a

Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547.

substantively

proper

basis

reasonable

for

if

concluding

receive

the

sentence

imposed,

Crudup,

461

F.3d

at

440.

Only

unreasonable

will

we

decide

to

the

whether

Moulden, 478 F.3d at 657.

up

the

the

if

A revocation

a
it

district
defendant

statutory
sentence
is

court
should

maximum.
is

found

“plainly”

so.

A sentence is plainly unreasonable if

it is clearly or obviously unreasonable.

Crudup, 461 F.3d at

439.
Simpson contends that his 48-month revocation sentence is
substantively unreasonable because the district court punished
him

for

his

violative

behavior

in

committing

second-degree

murder rather than for his breach of trust in violating the
terms

of

his

probation.

In

Simpson’s

view,

there

was

no

justifiable reason that existed to support the imposition of an
upward departure from the advisory policy statement range of 24
3

Appeal: 15-4701

Doc: 22

Filed: 06/02/2016

Pg: 4 of 5

to 30 months’ imprisonment, and his sentence is greater than
necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing in his case.
The nature and circumstances of Simpson’s violative conduct
in committing the murder and the murder’s place in Simpson’s
criminal history, however, were matters properly considered by
the

district

court

in

imposing

See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), 3565(a).

the

48-month

sentence.

Additionally, contrary to

Simpson’s assertion, the record makes clear that the district
court imposed the 48-month term in light of these matters and
the need for the sentence to sanction Simpson’s breach of trust,
as

it

was

permitted

to

do.

See

U.S.

Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual ch. 7, pt. A, introductory cmt. 3(b) (“[A]t revocation
the [district] court should sanction primarily the defendant’s
breach of trust, while taking into account, to a limited degree,
the seriousness of the underlying violation and the criminal
history of the violator.”).

Further, in light of the “extremely

broad” discretion afforded to a district court in determining
the weight to be given each of the § 3553(a) factors in imposing
sentence, United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir.
2011), and the deferential posture this court takes in reviewing
the imposition of a revocation sentence, Padgett, 788 F.3d at
373,

we

court’s

refuse
that

sentencing

to

the
in

substitute

48-month
Simpson’s

our

sentence
case.
4

judgment
achieved
See

for
the

United

the

district

purposes

of

States

v.

Appeal: 15-4701

Doc: 22

Filed: 06/02/2016

Pg: 5 of 5

Rivera-Santana, 668 F.3d 95, 105 (4th Cir. 2012) (stating it was
within district court’s discretion to accord more weight to a
host of aggravating factors in defendant’s case and decide that
the

sentence

whole).

imposed

would

serve

the

§ 3553

factors

on

the

We therefore conclude that the revocation sentence is

not substantively unreasonable and affirm the district court’s
judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5