US v. Ivander James, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:01-cr-00965-CWH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000112777].. [16-4421]

Appeal: 16-4421

Doc: 22

Filed: 07/06/2017

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4421

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
IVANDER JAMES, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (4:01-cr-00965-CWH-1)

Submitted:

January 31, 2017

Decided:

July 6, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4421

Doc: 22

Filed: 07/06/2017

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Ivander James, Jr., appeals from the sentence imposed after
he

was

resentenced

for

his

possession of a firearm.

conviction

for

being

a

felon

in

At resentencing, the court imposed a

term of imprisonment of time served and a three-year term of
supervised release.

Counsel has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that
there

are

whether

no

the

meritorious
three-year

reasonable sentence.

issues
term

for

of

appeal,

supervised

but

questioning

release

was

a

James was advised of his right to file a

pro se informal brief, but has not done so.
declined to file a brief.

The Government

We affirm.

James suggests that the three-year term is a substantively
unreasonable sentence.

Because James was resentenced under 18

U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012), the imposition of supervised release
under

18

U.S.C.

§ 3583(a)

(2012)

review questions of law de novo.
F.3d 288, 292 (4th Cir. 2012).

became

discretionary.

We

United States v. Strieper, 666
The district court’s imposition

of a sentence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.

Gall v.

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007).
James acknowledges that the Supreme Court has held that
“[s]upervised

release

fulfills

rehabilitative

ends,

distinct

from those served by incarceration” and that “[t]he objectives
of supervised release would be unfulfilled if excess prison time
2

Appeal: 16-4421

Doc: 22

Filed: 07/06/2017

Pg: 3 of 5

were to offset and reduce terms of supervised release.”
States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 59 (2000).
Court

considered

whether

the

defendant

United

In Johnson, the

was

entitled

to

a

reduction in the term of his supervised release to compensate
him

for

two

and

a

half

years

of

time

served

over

what

available after some of his convictions were invalidated.

was
The

Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e) (2012) did not entitle the
defendant to credit based on over service of an original term of
imprisonment, stating that § 3624(e) “does not reduce the length
of a supervised release term by reason of excess time served in
prison.”

Johnson, 529 U.S. at 60.

We have confirmed since Johnson that a supervised release
term

consecutive

to

a

term

of

imprisonment

cannot

be

served

concurrently to a term of imprisonment because the purpose of
supervised release is different from that of incarceration.

See

United States v. Neuhauser, 745 F.3d 125, 129 (4th Cir. 2014)
(evaluating

whether

completed

counted

States v.

civil

confinement

toward

supervised

Buchanan,

(considering

tolling

638
of

F.3d

448,

supervised

after

criminal

release
451
release

sentence

term);

(4th

Cir.

while

United
2011)

defendant

absconded).
A

“term

of

supervised

release

.

.

.

[is]

part

of

the

sentence,” United States v. Evans, 159 F.3d 908, 913 (4th Cir.
1998), and is therefore reviewed for reasonableness.
3

Gall, 552

Appeal: 16-4421

Doc: 22

U.S. at 51.
for

Filed: 07/06/2017

If a sentence is procedurally reasonable, we review

“substantive

abuse-of-discretion
F.3d

325,

Pg: 4 of 5

328

reasonableness
standard.”

(4th

Cir.

.

United

2009).

.

.

States
The

under

v.

an

Carter,

sentence

must

564
be

“sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the
purposes” of sentencing.

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing
the maximum three-year term of supervised release.

The court

specified the need for supervision, stating that James had been
incarcerated for a lengthy period of time and that the purpose
of

supervised

situated
outside

release

and
of

provide

prison.

was

to

have

supervision
The

court

someone

of

his

to

help

transition

acknowledged

that

later move the court to terminate supervision.

him
to

James

get
life

could

James has not

rebutted the presumption of reasonableness.
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.

We therefore affirm the amended judgment.

This court

requires that counsel inform James, in writing, of the right to
petition

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

United

States

for

further

review.

If James requests that a petition be filed, but counsel

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel
may

move

in

representation.

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
4

Appeal: 16-4421

Doc: 22

Filed: 07/06/2017

was served on James.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

Pg: 5 of 5

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5