US v. Derrick Terry, No. 08-4724 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4724 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DERRICK VERNARD TERRY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:99-cr-00102-BO-1) Submitted: April 9, 2009 Decided: June 29, 2009 Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Derrick Vernard Terry appeals from the fifty-one month sentence imposed after he was found in violation of the terms and conditions of his supervised release. Terry alleges that his sentence is plainly unreasonable because he was sentenced based on a Grade A violation and his conduct only constituted a Grade B violation. On motion April for 22, 2008, revocation the against Probation Terry, Officer alleging filed that a Terry violated the terms of his supervised release by possessing a box of ammunition for a .40 caliber semi-automatic handgun. advised Special Agent James Ament of the Bureau of Terry Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATFE) that he purchased the handgun from worksheet a co-worker. The Terry s violation listed Grade A violation. supervised as release criminal violation conduct, a With a criminal history category of VI, the range of imprisonment was 51-60 months. Terry admitted the violation and stipulated that there was a factual basis for it. Agent Ament testified that he participated the in the search of residence where Terry was staying in relation to a state probation warrant out for Terry. A partially full box of .40 caliber ammunition was found. Agent Ament interviewed Terry about the ammunition and whether Terry had a gun. Terry stated that he purchased a handgun from a co2 worker for his girlfriend s protection when he was not at home with her. Agent Ament also testified that he and Terry talked about some drugs for awhile, and I advised Mr. Terry, I said we [k]now you are still dealing in drugs. And he said he might be dabbling in it a little bit to pay some bills. (J.A. 16). Agent Ament also testified that Terry listed several individuals in the Rocky Mount area from whom he felt he could get drugs. (J.A. 17). stating Terry later sent a letter to the probation office that Agent Ament had made up the story about his possible admission of drug distribution. The district court asked the Assistant United States Attorney for the sentencing range and she replied the range was 51 to 60 months. Defense counsel then asked the court for leniency since Terry was subject to future prosecution. court pronounced a sentence of 51 months without The additional reasoning or discussion. We review a sentence imposed as a result of a supervised release violation to determine whether the sentence was plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). The first step in this analysis is a determination of whether the sentence was unreasonable. 438. In determining reasonableness, we follow Id. at generally the procedural and substantive considerations employed in reviewing 3 original sentences. Id. If a sentence imposed after a revocation is not unreasonable, the court will not proceed to the second prong of plainly unreasonable. improper calculation the analysis--whether Id. of sentence unreasonable. the at Guidelines sentence However, 438-39. the a range may was court s render a United States v. Jones, 531 F.3d 163, 170 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2008)). Although a district court must consider the policy statements in Chapter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines along with the statutory requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (2006) and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), the 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 (quoting United States v. Lewis, 424 F.3d 239, 244 (2d Cir. 2005)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Finally, on review, we will assume a deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. Terry argues that his sentence is unreasonable because he was sentenced based on a Grade A violation, but that his violation qualified only as a Grade B violation and therefore the Guidelines range was improperly calculated. He further argues that his sentence is unreasonable because the district 4 court did not provide a sufficient explanation of the sentence to allow this court to review its reasonableness. Because Terry did not raise the issue in the district court, the claim is reviewed for plain error. States v. White, 405 See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United F.3d 208, 215 (4th Cir. 2005). To demonstrate plain error, a defendant must establish that error occurred, that it was substantial rights. 32 (1993). plain, and that it affected his United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731- If a defendant establishes these requirements, the court s discretion is appropriately exercised only when failure to do so would result in a miscarriage of justice, such as when the defendant is actually innocent or the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. at 736 (internal quotation marks omitted). The conduct that constituted the violation could have brought a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). Under Application Note 5 of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.1, possession of a firearm . . . will generally constitute a Grade B violation, because 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) prohibits a convicted felon from possessing a firearm. The conduct that Terry admitted and that was most specifically outlined in the motion for revocation involved only the possession of ammunition and admission that he had purchased a firearm. 5 With a Grade B violation and a criminal history category of VI, the Guidelines range would have been 21 to 27 months. The Government argues that there was no plain error in sentencing Terry for a Grade A violation because Agent Ament testified drugs. is that Terry admitted that he was still dealing in A felony offense that is a controlled substance offense conduct that § 7B1.1(a)(1). constitutes a Grade A violation. USSG Agent Ament s testimony was that Terry admitted that he might be dabbling in distribution and provided names of dealers from whom he could get drugs. that the drugs, AUSA and maintained that Terry below did that not The Government contends Terry counter was or still object dealing to this argument. The Guidelines state that the grade of violation does not depend upon the conduct that is the subject of criminal charges or of which the defendant is convicted in a criminal proceeding. Rather, the grade of the violation is to be based on the defendant s actual conduct. USSG § 7B1.1, comment. n.1. Therefore the Government contends that all of Terry s alleged conduct may be considered in determining the grade of the violation. The district court did not make any findings on the alleged drug distribution. Although Terry did not contest Agent Ament s testimony at the hearing, he did send a letter to his 6 probation officer stating that Agent interview with him was false. evidence at the hearing. Ament s summary of his This letter was introduced as Further, without a firm statement from the court that it was finding a violation based upon the alleged drug distribution, it can be assumed that the court was confirming the charge detailed in the motion for revocation, which was based only on the ammunition and firearm. As purely advisory policy statements, the sentencing ranges provided by sentencing court. n.6, 642 (4th USSG § 7B1.4, p.s., do not bind the See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 640 Cir. 1995). The district court has broad authority to revoke the supervised release sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. F.3d at 440. Terry up Crudup, 461 Therefore, the district court could have sentenced to the five-year statutory maximum. However, considering that it sentenced Terry at the lowest end of the Guidelines range, we conclude that there exists a non- speculative basis to infer prejudice. We further therefore proceedings vacate to the determine judgment whether and the remand district for court found a Grade A or Grade B violation, calculate a new Guidelines range, if dispense necessary, with oral and resentence argument because 7 Terry the accordingly. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED 8

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.