Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 27 views

    United States v. Henry Garland, JR., 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Henry Lewis Garland Jr. appealed his 16-month sentence imposed after his supervised release was revoked for violating the terms. 2) The court considered the proper sentencing factors and Garland's continued illegal conduct while on supervision to determine the upward variance was warranted. 3) The appeals court found the 16-month sentence was not plainly unreasonable given the district court's proper application of sentencing law and consideration of Garland's history and failure to follow prior supervision conditions.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Henry Garland, JR., 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    27 views3 pages
    1) Henry Lewis Garland Jr. appealed his 16-month sentence imposed after his supervised release was revoked for violating the terms. 2) The court considered the proper sentencing factors and Garland's continued illegal conduct while on supervision to determine the upward variance was warranted. 3) The appeals court found the 16-month sentence was not plainly unreasonable given the district court's proper application of sentencing law and consideration of Garland's history and failure to follow prior supervision conditions.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-05-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-5023

    Original Title

    United States v. Henry Garland, Jr., 4th Cir. (2013)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Henry Lewis Garland Jr. appealed his 16-month sentence imposed after his supervised release was revoked for violating the terms. 2) The court considered the proper sentencing factors and Garland's continued illegal conduct while on supervision to determine the upward variance was warranted. 3) The appeals court found the 16-month sentence was not plainly unreasonable given the district court's proper application of sentencing law and consideration of Garland's history and failure to follow prior supervision conditions.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    27 views3 pages

    United States v. Henry Garland, JR., 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Henry Lewis Garland Jr. appealed his 16-month sentence imposed after his supervised release was revoked for violating the terms. 2) The court considered the proper sentencing factors and Garland's continued illegal conduct while on supervision to determine the upward variance was warranted. 3) The appeals court found the 16-month sentence was not plainly unreasonable given the district court's proper application of sentencing law and consideration of Garland's history and failure to follow prior supervision conditions.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-5023

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    HENRY LEWIS GARLAND, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
    William L. Osteen,
    Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:08-cr-00015-WO-6)

    Submitted:

    May 23, 2013

    Before MOTZ and


    Circuit Judge.

    AGEE,

    Decided:

    Circuit

    Judges,

    and

    May 28, 2013

    HAMILTON,

    Senior

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    John D. Bryson, WYATT, EARLY, HARRIS & WHEELER, LLP, High Point,
    North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Ripley Rand, United States
    Attorney, Graham T. Green, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Bethany Corbin, Clinical Program
    Law Student, WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Henry
    sentence

    Lewis

    imposed

    release.

    He

    unreasonable
    Garlands

    upon

    because

    Jr.,

    revocation

    contends

    criminal

    record.

    Garland,

    that
    the

    the

    of

    his

    upward

    district

    history

    appeals

    sixteen-month

    term

    of

    variance

    court

    category

    the

    did

    supervised

    sentence

    not

    understated

    find

    his

    was
    that

    criminal

    We affirm.
    We

    will

    not

    disturb

    sentence

    imposed

    after

    revocation of supervised release that is within the prescribed


    statutory

    range

    and

    is

    not

    plainly

    unreasonable.

    United

    States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437-39 (4th Cir. 2006).


    making

    this

    determination,

    sentence is unreasonable.

    we

    first

    Id. at 438.

    consider

    whether

    In
    the

    This initial inquiry

    takes a more deferential appellate posture concerning issues of


    fact and the exercise of discretion than reasonableness review
    for [G]uidelines sentences.

    United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d

    652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citations
    omitted).
    Although

    district

    court

    ultimately

    has

    broad

    discretion to revoke its previous sentence and impose a term of


    imprisonment up to the statutory maximum, Crudup, 461 F.3d at
    439 (internal quotation marks omitted), the court must consider
    the Chapter Seven policy statements in the federal Sentencing
    Guidelines manual, as well as the statutory requirements and
    2

    factors

    applicable

    to

    revocation

    sentences

    under

    18

    U.S.C.

    3553(a), 3583(e) (2006).


    In

    determining

    Garlands

    revocation

    sentence,

    the

    district court considered the Chapter Seven policy statements,


    the

    statutory

    3553(a).

    requirements,

    The

    court

    and

    noted

    the

    that

    relevant

    the

    factors

    six-month

    in

    revocation

    sentence Garland previously received was insufficient to protect


    the public and deter him from future criminal activity.

    The

    court also considered Garlands continued illegal conduct while


    on

    supervisionincluding

    numerous

    traffic

    violations

    and

    his

    pattern of drug useand concluded that an upward variance to


    sixteen months imprisonment was appropriate.

    See United States

    v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359, 365 (4th Cir. 2011) (providing


    that

    court

    may

    vary

    from

    Guidelines

    range

    based

    on

    considerations other than Guidelines-sanctioned departures).


    This
    unreasonable.

    sixteen-month

    sentence

    is

    not

    See Crudup, 461 F.3d at 437-39.

    plainly

    The district

    court complied with the requirements of sentencing and did not


    abuse

    its

    discretion

    in

    imposing

    Garlands

    Accordingly, we affirm the revocation judgment.

    sentence.
    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

    You might also like