US v. Tony Alexander

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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