Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    United States v. William Drake, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) William Preston Drake appealed his 24-month sentence imposed after his supervised release was revoked. 2) The district court considered the applicable policy statements and sentencing factors. It thoroughly explained its rationale for the sentence, including Drake's history of recidivism and the need to deter and protect the public from further crimes. 3) The appellate court affirmed, finding the sentence procedurally and substantively reasonable given the district court's proper consideration of factors and reasoned basis for the sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. William Drake, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    15 views4 pages
    1) William Preston Drake appealed his 24-month sentence imposed after his supervised release was revoked. 2) The district court considered the applicable policy statements and sentencing factors. It thoroughly explained its rationale for the sentence, including Drake's history of recidivism and the need to deter and protect the public from further crimes. 3) The appellate court affirmed, finding the sentence procedurally and substantively reasonable given the district court's proper consideration of factors and reasoned basis for the sentence.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-06-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-4869

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) William Preston Drake appealed his 24-month sentence imposed after his supervised release was revoked. 2) The district court considered the applicable policy statements and sentencing factors. It thoroughly explained its rationale for the sentence, including Drake's history of recidivism and the need to deter and protect the public from further crimes. 3) The appellate court affirmed, finding the sentence procedurally and substantively reasonable given the district court's proper consideration of factors and reasoned basis for the sentence.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. William Drake, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) William Preston Drake appealed his 24-month sentence imposed after his supervised release was revoked. 2) The district court considered the applicable policy statements and sentencing factors. It thoroughly explained its rationale for the sentence, including Drake's history of recidivism and the need to deter and protect the public from further crimes. 3) The appellate court affirmed, finding the sentence procedurally and substantively reasonable given the district court's proper consideration of factors and reasoned basis for the sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-4869

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    WILLIAM PRESTON DRAKE,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham.
    James A. Beaty, Jr.,
    Chief District Judge. (1:05-cr-00022-JAB-3)

    Submitted:

    June 10, 2011

    Decided:

    June 28, 2011

    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Thomas H. Johnson, Jr., GRAY, JOHNSON & LAWSON, LLP, Greensboro,


    North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Ripley Rand, United States
    Attorney, Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    William

    Preston

    Drake

    appeals

    the

    twenty-four

    month

    sentence he received upon revocation of his supervised release.


    The district court has broad discretion to impose a sentence
    upon revoking a defendants supervised release.

    United States

    v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).


    court

    will

    affirm

    sentence

    imposed

    after

    Thus, this

    revocation

    of

    supervised release if it is within the governing statutory range


    and not plainly unreasonable.

    United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d

    433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006).

    Before determining whether the

    sentence is plainly unreasonable we must decide whether it is


    unreasonable.

    Id. at 438.

    In doing so, we follow generally

    the procedural and substantive considerations used in reviewing


    original

    sentences.

    Id.

    For

    the

    reasons

    stated

    below,

    we

    affirm.
    A sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district
    court has considered the policy statements contained in Chapter
    7

    of

    the

    Guidelines

    and

    the

    applicable

    18

    U.S.C.

    3553(a)

    (2006) factors, id. at 440, and has adequately explained the


    sentence chosen, though it need not explain the sentence in as
    much detail as when imposing the original sentence.
    595 F.3d at 547.

    Thompson,

    A sentence is substantively reasonable if the

    district court states a proper basis for its imposition of a


    sentence up to the statutory maximum.
    2

    Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.

    If,

    after

    considering

    the

    above,

    we

    are

    convinced

    sentence is not unreasonable, we will affirm.


    this

    initial

    inquiry,

    this

    court

    takes

    that

    the

    Id. at 439. In
    more

    deferential

    posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion


    than

    it

    does

    in

    applying

    the

    reasonableness

    review

    to

    post-

    United States v. Moulden, 478

    conviction guidelines sentences.


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

    our

    deferential

    standard

    sentence is not plainly unreasonable.

    of

    review,

    Drakes

    After the district court

    expressly considered the applicable Chapter 7 policy statement


    and the advisory revocation Guidelines range of twenty-one to
    twenty-four

    months,

    the

    district

    court

    Guidelines twenty-four month sentence.


    its

    rationale

    3553(a)

    for

    the

    factors,

    sentence,

    within-

    It thoroughly explained

    drawing

    including

    imposed

    on

    Drakes

    several

    of

    history

    the
    and

    characteristics, emphasizing his history of recidivism; the need


    to protect the public from his further crimes; and the need to
    deter

    Drake

    district
    satisfy

    from

    court
    the

    met

    continued
    its

    appellate

    criminal

    obligation
    court

    that

    to

    activity.
    set

    [it]

    has

    Thus,

    forth

    enough

    considered

    the
    to
    the

    parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its]


    own legal decisionmaking authority, Rita v. United States, 551
    U.S.

    338,

    356

    (2007),

    and

    stated

    proper

    basis

    for

    imposition of the chosen sentence, Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.


    3

    its

    Accordingly,

    we

    conclude

    month sentence is reasonable.


    courts judgment.
    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    that

    Drakes

    twenty-four

    We therefore affirm the district

    We dispense with oral argument because the


    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like