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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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 . Mailed to: Tony B. Alexander. [16-4112]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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)
August 19, 2016
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
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
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2012).
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
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
evidence and there is no clear error in the court’s credibility
See United States v. Hall, 664 F.3d 456, 462 (4th
Cir. 2012) (providing that great deference is given to trial
We grant Alexander’s motions to supplement his informal
brief and have considered the arguments raised therein.
Pg: 3 of 4
supervised release upon finding that he violated the terms of his
See United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th
sentence upon revocation of supervised release.”
Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013).
United States v.
We will affirm a
revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and not
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-
40 (4th Cir. 2006).
The district court properly considered the
Guidelines and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors applicable
Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).
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
Pg: 4 of 4
We therefore conclude that the sentence imposed was not
Accordingly, we affirm the revocation judgment.
We dispense with
argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?