US v. Shadarryl Turner

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:09-cr-00316-F-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999974655].. [16-4176]

Appeal: 16-4176

Doc: 32

Filed: 11/23/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4176

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SHADARRYL TURNER, a/k/a D, a/k/a Ditto, a/k/a Van Ditto,
a/k/a Shad,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00316-F-1)

Submitted:

October 26, 2016

Decided:

November 23, 2016

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Jennifer C.
Leisten, Research and Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Jon Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4176

Doc: 32

Filed: 11/23/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Shadarryl Turner appeals from the district court’s judgment
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 24 months’
imprisonment.

On appeal, Turner challenges his sentence.

We

affirm.
We review sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised
release to determine whether they “fall[] outside the statutory
maximum”

or

are

“plainly

unreasonable.”

United

States

v.

Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks
omitted), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 494 (2015).
whether
whether

a

sentence

the

is

sentence

plainly
is

unreasonable,

unreasonable[,]

“In determining
we

first

. . .

decide

follow[ing]

generally the procedural and substantive considerations that we
employ in our review of original sentences.”
Crudup,

461

F.3d

433,

438

(4th

Cir.

United States v.

2006).

“Only

if

a

revocation sentence is unreasonable must we assess whether it is
plainly so.”
A

Padgett, 788 F.3d at 373.

revocation

sentence

is

procedurally

reasonable

if

the

district court considered the policy statements in Chapter Seven
of

the

U.S.

Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual

and

the

applicable

§ 3553(a) factors.

Id.; see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012).

The

court

an

the

must

provide

adequate

statement

of

reasons

for

revocation sentence it imposes, but this statement need not be
as

specific

or

as

detailed

as
2

that

required

in

imposing

an

Appeal: 16-4176

Doc: 32

Filed: 11/23/2016

original sentence.

Pg: 3 of 4

United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547

(4th Cir. 2010); see United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 642
(4th

Cir.

2013)

(“[M]ere

reference

to

[factors

omitted

from

§ 3583(e)] does not render a revocation sentence procedurally
unreasonable when those factors are relevant to, and considered
in conjunction with, the enumerated § 3553(a) factors.”).
revocation

sentence

is

substantively

reasonable

if

the

A

court

stated a proper basis for concluding that the defendant should
receive the sentence imposed.

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.

The

sentence must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,”
to satisfy the goals of sentencing.
U.S.C. § 3583(e).

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); see 18

However, “the sentencing court retains broad

discretion to . . . impose a term of imprisonment up to the
statutory

maximum.”

Padgett,

788

F.3d

at

373

(internal

reveals

no

procedural

quotation marks omitted).
Our

review

of

substantive

error

calculating

the

the

by

policy

the

record

district

statement

court.

range,

After

the

court

or

properly
considered

counsels’ arguments, the Chapter Seven policy statements, and
the

relevant

§

3553(a)

Turner’s sentence.

factors,

and

adequately

explained

The court’s passing reference to promoting

respect for the law, in the context of the court’s reasoning as
a

whole,

does

Accordingly,

not
we

render
affirm

the

sentence

the

district
3

plainly

unreasonable.

court’s

judgment.

Appeal: 16-4176

Doc: 32

We dispense

with

contentions

are

Filed: 11/23/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

oral

because

argument

adequately

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4