US v. Ivander James, Jr.


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4421 Doc: 22 Filed: 07/06/2017 Pg: 1 of 5 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4421 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. IVANDER JAMES, JR., Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?