US v. Tony Alexander


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motions to supplement informal brief [999907185-2], [999853231-2]. Originating case number: 3:95-cr-00178-MOC-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999929063]. Mailed to: Tony B. Alexander. [16-4112]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4112 Doc: 27 Filed: 09/14/2016 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4112 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TONY BERNARD ALEXANDER, a/k/a Sealed Dft #1, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:95-cr-00178-MOC-1) Submitted: August 19, 2016 Decided: September 14, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony Bernard Alexander, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-4112 Doc: 27 Filed: 09/14/2016 Pg: 2 of 4 PER CURIAM: Tony B. Alexander appeals from the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and imposing an 11-month sentence. On appeal, Alexander contends that the probation officer presented false testimony, and that the sentence imposed is unreasonable. * Finding no error, we affirm. To revoke supervised release, a district court need only find a violation evidence. of supervised release by a 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2012). preponderance of the This standard “simply requires the trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 631 (4th Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the district court heard the evidence presented by the probation officer and heard Alexander’s argument that the officer’s testimony was false. We conclude that the district court’s is finding of a violation supported by the evidence and there is no clear error in the court’s credibility determination. See United States v. Hall, 664 F.3d 456, 462 (4th Cir. 2012) (providing that great deference is given to trial court’s credibility discretion by the determinations). district court * We in find revoking no abuse of Alexander’s We grant Alexander’s motions to supplement his informal brief and have considered the arguments raised therein. 2 Appeal: 16-4112 Doc: 27 Filed: 09/14/2016 Pg: 3 of 4 supervised release upon finding that he violated the terms of his supervision. See United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992). “A district court has broad discretion when sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). imposing a United States v. We will affirm a revocation 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). The district court properly considered the applicable 7 Chapter policy statements in the Sentencing Guidelines and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors applicable in the supervised § 3583(e); explanation Crudup, for release 461 the revocation F.3d at sentence 439, context, and imposed, provided see Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). see United 18 U.S.C. sufficient States v. The court noted the policy statement recommendation of an 8 to 14 month sentence and, addressing the relevant factors, the court denied the Government’s motion for an upward departure and determined that an 11-month sentence would be appropriate. We conclude that the court’s explanation for the selected sentence is sufficient. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not err in finding that Alexander violated the terms of his supervision and did not abuse its discretion in imposing an 11-month sentence to be followed by an 8-year term of supervised 3 Appeal: 16-4112 Doc: 27 release. plainly Filed: 09/14/2016 Pg: 4 of 4 We therefore conclude that the sentence imposed was not unreasonable. See Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439-40. Accordingly, we affirm the revocation judgment. We dispense with oral contentions argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before this court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

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?