US v. John Simpson, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:15-cr-00810-PMD-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999940788]. [16-4182]

Appeal: 16-4182

Doc: 20

Filed: 10/04/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4182

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN T. SIMPSON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:15-cr-00810-PMD-1)

Submitted:

September 30, 2016

Decided:

October 4, 2016

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alicia
Vachira
Penn,
Assistant
Federal
Public
Defender,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Dean Hodge Secor,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4182

Doc: 20

Filed: 10/04/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
John T. Simpson, Jr., appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his supervised release and imposing a sentence of 11
months of imprisonment.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning
the reasonableness of Simpson’s sentence.

We affirm.

A court may revoke supervised release if it “finds by a
preponderance

of

the

evidence

that

condition of supervised release.”

the

defendant

violated

a

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2012).

We review a district court’s revocation decision for abuse of
discretion.

United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th

Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 494 (2015).

Because Simpson

admitted the violations of which the district court found him
guilty, we conclude that the court’s revocation decision was not
an abuse of discretion.
“A

district

court

has

broad

discretion

sentence upon revocation of supervised release.”

when

imposing

a

United States v.

Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing United States v.
Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010)).

We “will affirm a

revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is
not plainly unreasonable.”

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted)

(quoting United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir.
2006)).

“When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly
2

Appeal: 16-4182

Doc: 20

Filed: 10/04/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

unreasonable, we must first determine whether it is unreasonable
at all.”

Thompson, 595 F.3d at 546 (citing authorities).

A

revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district
court

adequately

explains

the

sentence

after

considering

the

policy statements in Chapter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines
and

the

applicable

18

U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)

(2012)

factors.

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); Thompson, 595 F.3d at 546-47.
court’s

explanation

of

Simpson’s

sentence,

See

The district

which

emphasized

Simpson’s repeated noncompliance with the terms of his supervised
release, easily satisfies this standard.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
therefore

affirm

the

district

court’s

judgment.

This

We

court

requires that counsel inform Simpson, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Simpson requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in
this court for leave to withdraw from representation.

Counsel’s

motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Simpson.
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
3