Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 97 views

    United States v. Carwin Pettis, JR., 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Carwin Tyrone Pettis, Jr. appealed his 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. 2) The district court correctly calculated and considered the advisory policy statement range of 18-24 months and heard arguments from both sides. 3) The district court sufficiently explained its reasons for the sentence and considered relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), including the need for punishment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Carwin Pettis, JR., 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    97 views4 pages
    1) Carwin Tyrone Pettis, Jr. appealed his 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. 2) The district court correctly calculated and considered the advisory policy statement range of 18-24 months and heard arguments from both sides. 3) The district court sufficiently explained its reasons for the sentence and considered relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), including the need for punishment.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-09-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-4393

    Original Title

    United States v. Carwin Pettis, Jr., 4th Cir. (2014)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Carwin Tyrone Pettis, Jr. appealed his 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. 2) The district court correctly calculated and considered the advisory policy statement range of 18-24 months and heard arguments from both sides. 3) The district court sufficiently explained its reasons for the sentence and considered relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), including the need for punishment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    97 views4 pages

    United States v. Carwin Pettis, JR., 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Carwin Tyrone Pettis, Jr. appealed his 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. 2) The district court correctly calculated and considered the advisory policy statement range of 18-24 months and heard arguments from both sides. 3) The district court sufficiently explained its reasons for the sentence and considered relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), including the need for punishment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-4393

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    CARWIN TYRONE PETTIS, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.
    Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
    District Judge. (3:08-cr-00396-CMC-2)

    Submitted:

    August 27, 2014

    Decided:

    September 5, 2014

    Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Parks N. Small, Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South


    Carolina, for Appellant.
    William N. Nettles, United States
    Attorney, T. DeWayne Pearson, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Carwin

    Tyrone

    twenty-four-month

    sentence

    supervised release.
    unreasonable.

    Pettis,

    Jr.,

    imposed

    appeals

    upon

    from

    revocation

    of

    the
    his

    He contends that this sentence is plainly

    We affirm.

    We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of


    supervised

    release

    if

    it

    is

    within

    the

    prescribed

    statutory

    range and not plainly unreasonable.

    United States v. Crudup,

    461 F.3d 433, 43940 (4th Cir. 2006).

    We consider first whether

    the

    sentence

    unreasonable.
    more

    imposed

    is

    Id. at 438.

    deferential

    posture

    procedurally

    or

    substantively

    In this initial inquiry, we take a


    concerning

    issues

    of

    fact

    and

    the

    exercise of discretion than undertaken for the reasonableness


    review

    for

    Guidelines

    sentences.

    United

    478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007).

    States

    v.

    Moulden,

    If we find the sentence

    procedurally or substantively unreasonable, we must then decide


    whether it is plainly so.
    Here,

    the

    Id. at 657.

    district

    court

    correctly

    calculated

    and

    considered the advisory policy statement range of eighteen to


    twenty-four
    under

    18

    months
    U.S.C.

    imprisonment,

    3583(e)

    considered

    (2012),

    counsel and allocution from Pettis.

    and

    relevant

    heard

    factors

    argument

    from

    The court also sufficiently

    explained its reasons for imposing a sentence within the policy


    statement range.

    See Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.


    2

    Pettis contends that, in determining his sentence, the


    district court improperly relied on the need for the sentence to
    reflect the seriousness of his violative conduct, to promote
    respect for the law, and to provide just punishment.

    Because

    Pettis did not object in the district court to its consideration


    of

    these

    factors,

    our

    review

    is

    for

    plain

    error.

    United States v. Hargrove, 625 F.3d 170, 18384 (4th Cir. 2010).
    The
    was

    in

    district

    conjunction

    enumerated

    in

    18

    courts

    with

    consideration

    its

    U.S.C.

    of

    consideration

    3583(e).

    of

    these

    factors

    the

    factors

    Although

    3583(e)

    enumerates the factors a district court should consider when


    formulating

    revocation

    sentence,

    it

    does

    not

    expressly

    prohibit a court from referencing other relevant factors omitted


    from the statute.
    (4th Cir. 2013).
    the

    need

    for

    United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 641

    Because the district court properly considered

    punishment

    in

    conjunction

    with

    the

    enumerated

    factors, we find no plain error by the district court.

    See id.

    at 642 (concluding that reference to non-enumerated factor does


    not

    render

    revocation

    sentence

    procedurally

    unreasonable

    when

    considered in conjunction with enumerated 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)


    (2012) factors).
    Accordingly,

    we

    conclude

    that

    the

    twenty-four-month

    revocation sentence which is not greater than the statutory


    maximum and is within the advisory policy statement range is
    3

    not

    plainly

    unreasonable.

    courts judgment.
    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We

    therefore

    affirm

    the

    district

    We dispense with oral argument because the


    contentions

    are

    adequately

    this

    and

    argument

    court

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like