United States v. Joe Mills, JR., 4th Cir. (2012)

Download as pdf
Download as pdf
You are on page 1of 3
 
UNPUBLISHED
 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
 No. 11-4713
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v.  JOE D. MILLS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal fromthe United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (4:08-cr-00012-F-1) Submitted: February 7, 2012 Decided: February 23, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiamopinion.  Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 
2 PER CURIAM:  Joe D. Mills, Jr. appeals the district courts  judgment imposing a thirty-six month sentence upon revocation of his probation. Mills does not dispute that he violated the terms of his probation, but instead challenges the procedural reasonableness of his sentence. We affirm. We review sentences imposed upon revocation of probation to determine whether they are plainly unreasonable. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 655 (4th Cir. 2007).  The first step in this review analyzes whether the sentence imposed is unreasonable at all, taking “a more deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than reasonableness review for guidelines sentences.Id. at 656 (internal quotation marks omitted). Although a sentencing court must consider the non-binding policy statements in Chapter 7 of the Guidelines as well as the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, it “retains broad discretion to revoke a defendants probation and impose a termof imprisonment up to the statutory maximum.Id. at 656-57. A sentencing court must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed, but this statement need not be as specific as one addressing a departure froma “traditional” Guidelines range. Id. at 657. If the revocation sentence is unreasonable, we must then determine whether it is plainly so. Id.
 
3 We find that the district court adequately explained its reasons for imposing the thirty-six month revocation sentence. In rejecting Mills’ request for a shorter sentence followed by a termof supervised release conditioned on in-patient substance abuse treatment, the district court recounted Mills’ pattern of supervision violations and relapse into substance abuse following treatment. Thus, the district court deemed Mills no longer suitable for community supervision. We find the district courts explanation sufficient in this case. Accordingly, we affirmthe district courts judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process. AFFIRMED

Reward Your Curiosity

Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.
No Commitment. Cancel anytime.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505