US v. Shaunda McAdoo

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:10-cr-00238-RJC-3. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999880991] [15-4725]

Appeal: 15-4725

Doc: 26

Filed: 07/07/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4725

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAUNDA SHENAL MCADOO,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:10-cr-00238-RJC-3)

Submitted:

May 31, 2016

Decided:

July 7, 2016

Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Edward Yeager, Jr., Cornelius, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4725

Doc: 26

Filed: 07/07/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Shaunda Shenal McAdoo appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking her supervised release and sentencing her to six months
of imprisonment and two years of supervised release thereafter.
On appeal, McAdoo contends that the district court clearly erred
by finding that she committed three Grade C violations of the
terms of her supervised release and that her six-month term of
imprisonment was plainly unreasonable.

We affirm.

To revoke supervised release, a district court need only
find

a

violation

of

a

condition

preponderance of the evidence.

of

supervised

release

by

a

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2012);

United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992).
This

standard

is

met

when

the

court

“believe[s]

that

the

existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”
United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 631 (4th Cir. 2010)
(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).

We

review

a

district

court’s ultimate decision to revoke supervised release for an
abuse

of

discretion,

reviewing

the

court’s

factual

findings

underlying a revocation for clear error, and find none.

See

United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015).
Here,

McAdoo

admitted

her

three

Grade

C

violations

at

her

revocation hearing.
Regarding
discretion

McAdoo’s

when

sentence,

imposing

a

a

district

sentence
2

upon

court

has

broad

revocation

of

Appeal: 15-4725

Doc: 26

Filed: 07/07/2016

supervised release.
(4th Cir. 2013).

Pg: 3 of 3

United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640

We will affirm a sentence if it is within the

statutory maximum and not plainly unreasonable.

United States

v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006).
conclude

that

the

sentence

whether it is plainly so.
652, 657 (4th Cir. 2007).

is

unreasonable

Only if we

must

we

decide

United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d
We presume that a sentence within the

Chapter Seven policy statement range is reasonable, Webb, 738
F.3d at 642, and our review of the record reveals that McAdoo’s
sentence is both within the statutory maximum and the policy
statement

range

(of

three

to

nine

months)

for

her

Grade

C

violations, and that she fails to rebut the presumption that the
sentence was reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3