US v. Darrin Marcus Davi
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to expedite decision [1000096024-2] Originating case number: 4:08-cr-00869-TLW-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [17-4104]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
DARRIN MARCUS DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:08-cr-00869-TLW-1)
Submitted: July 14, 2017
Decided: July 20, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellant. Beth Drake, United States Attorney, Alfred W. Bethea, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Darrin Marcus Davis appeals the district court’s order revoking his supervised
release and sentencing him to 15 months’ imprisonment and 12 months’ supervised
release. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation
of supervised release.” United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). “We
will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly
unreasonable.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “When reviewing whether a
revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we must first determine whether it is
unreasonable at all.” United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010). A
revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court adequately explains the
sentence after considering the Sentencing Guidelines’ Chapter Seven policy statements
and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012);
Thompson, 595 F.3d at 546-47.
Davis claims that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district
court did not properly consider the applicable policy statements and sentencing factors.
He also argues that the district court failed to explain adequately its reasons for the
sentence it imposed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we find that the district court
thoughtfully applied the proper considerations in determining Davis’ sentence and that its
explanation of his sentence was sufficient. See Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (discussing
standard). We therefore conclude that Davis’ sentence is not plainly unreasonable.
Pg: 3 of 3
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny as moot Davis’
motion to expedite.
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.
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?