US v. Lawrence Pettaway


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:10-cr-00161-MSD-DEM-2. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000178515]. [17-4359]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-4359 Doc: 18 Filed: 10/23/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-4359 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LAWRENCE L. PETTAWAY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:10-cr-00161-MSD-DEM-2) Submitted: October 19, 2017 Decided: October 23, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Anderson, ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Katherine Lee Martin, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Alan Mark Salsbury, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-4359 Doc: 18 Filed: 10/23/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Lawrence L. Pettaway appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a sentence of 36 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 grounds for appeal but questioning the reasonableness of Pettaway’s sentence. 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 policy statements in Chapter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012); see also United States v. Slappy, ___, F.3d ___, ___, No. 16-4010, 2017 WL 4183191, at *3-5 (4th Cir. Sept. 22, 2017); Thompson, 595 F.3d at 546-47. “And a revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the court sufficiently states a proper basis for its conclusion that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed.” Slappy, 2017 WL 4183191, at *3 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude that the district court’s explanation of Pettaway’s above policy statement range sentence, in discussing the need for future deterrence in light of Pettaway’s 2 Appeal: 17-4359 Doc: 18 Filed: 10/23/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 background and criminal history and pointing out Pettaway’s repeated noncompliance with the terms of his supervised release, easily satisfies this standard. Furthermore, we conclude that an upward variance of 18 months from the top of the applicable policy statement range is not unreasonable. See, e.g., United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359, 362, 367 (4th Cir. 2011). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. This court requires that counsel inform Pettaway, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Pettaway 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 Pettaway. 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

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?