US v. Claude Lee Coles, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:09-cr-00332-JAG-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999918738].. [16-4050]

Appeal: 16-4050

Doc: 32

Filed: 08/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4050

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CLAUDE LEE COLES, JR., a/k/a Cheese,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:09-cr-00332-JAG-1)

Submitted:

August 25, 2016

Decided:

August 29, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt,
Appellate Attorney, Carolyn V. Grady, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney,
Olivia L. Norman, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4050

Doc: 32

Filed: 08/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Claude Lee Coles, Jr., appeals from the district court’s
judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to
60

months’

imprisonment.

On

appeal,

Coles

argues

that

this

sentence is procedurally and substantively plainly unreasonable.
We affirm.
This court will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation
of supervised release “if it is within the statutory maximum and
is not ‘plainly unreasonable.’”

United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d

638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Crudup, 461
F.3d

433,

438

(4th

Cir.

2006)).

When

reviewing

whether

a

revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we first assess the
sentence

for

unreasonableness,

“follow[ing]

generally

the

procedural and substantive considerations that we employ in our
review of original sentences.”
supervised
reasonable

release
if

the

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438.

revocation
district

court

sentence
considers

is

A

procedurally
the

Sentencing

Guidelines’ Chapter Seven advisory policy statement range and
explains the sentence adequately after considering the policy
statements and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors it is
permitted to consider in a supervised release revocation case.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439.

A

revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the district
court states a proper basis for concluding the defendant should
2

Appeal: 16-4050

Doc: 32

Filed: 08/29/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum.
Crudup,

461

F.3d

at

440.

Only

if

a

sentence

is

See
found

procedurally or substantively unreasonable will we “then decide
whether

the

sentence

(emphasis omitted).

is

plainly

Id.

at

439

A sentence is plainly unreasonable if it is

clearly or obviously unreasonable.
Coles

unreasonable.”

contends

that

his

Id.

60-month

revocation

sentence

is

procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the district
court

did

not

sufficiently

consider

a

sentence

within

the

advisory policy statement range of 7 to 13 months’ imprisonment.
Contrary to Coles’ assertion, however, the record makes clear
that the district court heard his arguments in mitigation at the
revocation hearing but rejected them in light of the nature and
circumstances

of

his

violative

behavior,

his

history

and

characteristics, deterrence for other members of the SCORE drug
treatment program, and the need for the revocation sentence to
sanction his breach of trust on release, all factors the court
was permitted to consider in imposing a revocation sentence.
See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), 3583(e); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual ch. 7, pt. A, introductory cmt. 3(b) (U.S. Sentencing
Comm’n

2015)

(“[A]t

revocation

the

[district]

court

should

sanction primarily the defendant’s breach of trust, while taking
into

account,

underlying

to

a

violation

limited
and

degree,
the
3

the

criminal

seriousness
history

of
of

the
the

Appeal: 16-4050

Doc: 32

violator.”).

Filed: 08/29/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

We therefore conclude that the revocation sentence

is not procedurally or 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

4