US v. Elijah Grant
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cr-00017-RJC-16 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999988457].. [16-4417]
Appeal: 16-4417
Doc: 18
Filed: 12/16/2016
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4417
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ELIJAH GRANT, a/k/a Box,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:14-cr-00017-RJC-16)
Submitted:
December 9, 2016
Decided:
December 16, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, SHEDD, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Amy K. Raffaldt, MACE FIRM, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for
Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-4417
Doc: 18
Filed: 12/16/2016
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Elijah Grant was charged with violating various conditions
of his supervised release.
At a hearing at which Grant admitted
committing the violations, the district court revoked release
and sentenced Grant to 12 months in prison.
attorney
has
California,
sentence
filed
386
is
a
brief
U.S.
738
reasonable
in
accordance
(1967),
but
with
questioning
concluding
meritorious issues for appeal.
Grant appeals.
that
Anders
whether
there
are
His
v.
the
no
Grant was advised of his right
to file a pro se brief but has not filed such a brief.
We
affirm.
We will uphold “a revocation sentence if it is within the
statutory maximum and is not ‘plainly unreasonable.’”
States
v.
Webb,
738
F.3d
638,
640
(4th
Cir.
2013)
United
(quoting
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006)).
The
record
statutory
establishes
maximum
§ 3583(e)(3)
(2012).
that
term
The
of
Grant
three
remaining
was
sentenced
years,
question
see
is
within
18
the
U.S.C.
whether
the
sentence is plainly unreasonable.
“When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly
unreasonable, we must first determine whether it is unreasonable
at all.”
2010).
United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir.
Only if we find a sentence to be unreasonable will we
2
Appeal: 16-4417
Doc: 18
Filed: 12/16/2016
Pg: 3 of 4
consider whether it is “plainly” so.
United States v. Crudup,
461 F.3d at 440.
A
revocation
district
court
sentence
considered
is
procedurally
the
Chapter
reasonable
Seven
policy
if
statement
range and the applicable statutory sentencing factors.
revocation
sentence
is
substantively
reasonable
if
the
Id.
the
A
court
stated a proper basis for concluding that the defendant should
receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum.
Id.
“A court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a
revocation
sentence
as
it
must
be
when
imposing
a
post-conviction sentence, but it still ‘must provide a statement
of
reasons
for
the
sentence
imposed.’”
United
States
v.
Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (quoting United States v. Moulden, 478
F.3d 652, 657 (4th Cir 2007)).
We
conclude
that
Grant’s
substantively reasonable.
sentence
is
procedurally
and
The district court stated that it had
considered relevant § 3553(a) factors, and the court was aware
of Grant’s policy statement range of 6-12 months.
court
provided
a
sufficiently
individualized
fashioning the revocation sentence.
Further, the
assessment
in
In this regard, the court
was especially troubled by Grant’s persistent drug use.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
therefore
affirm.
This
court
3
requires
that
counsel
We
inform
Appeal: 16-4417
Doc: 18
Filed: 12/16/2016
Pg: 4 of 4
Grant, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of
the United States for further review.
If Grant 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 Grant.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court 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?