US v. Joseph Bowden, No. 08-4781 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4781 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSEPH DAVID BOWDEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:99-cr-317-1) Submitted: June 29, 2009 Decided: July 13, 2009 Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Todd A. Smith, LAW FIRM OF TODD A. SMITH, Graham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank Joseph Chut, Jr., Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joseph Bowden appeals from the district court s judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a tenmonth sentence. On appeal, Bowden s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning the decision to revoke Bowden s supervised reasonableness of the sentence imposed. release and the Although informed of his right to do so, Bowden has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm. We review the district court s supervised release for abuse of discretion. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999). revocation of United States v. The district court need only find a violation of a condition of supervised release by a preponderance of the evidence. (2006). We review for clear 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) error factual determinations underlying the conclusion that a violation occurred. United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003); United States v. Whalen, 82 F.3d 528, 532 (1st Cir. 1996). After reviewing the record, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining by a preponderance of the evidence that Bowden violated the terms of his supervised release. We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within 2 the prescribed statutory range and not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). sentence for unreasonableness, We first assesses the follow[ing] generally the procedural and substantive considerations that we employ in our review of original modifications to sentences, take into . . . with account the supervised release revocation sentences. some unique necessary nature Id. at 438-39. of If we conclude that a sentence is not unreasonable, we will affirm the Id. at 439. sentence. or substantively Only if a sentence is found procedurally unreasonable will sentence is plainly unreasonable. A supervised procedurally reasonable the decide whether the sentence is considered the Id. release if we revocation district court Chapter Seven advisory policy statement range and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors that it is permitted to consider in a supervised release revocation case. Crudup, 461 reasonable F.3d if the at 440. Such district court See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); a sentence stated a is substantively proper basis for concluding the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. is plainly unreasonable. unreasonable Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. if it Id. at 439. 3 is clearly or A sentence obviously While the district court mentioned the § 3553(a) factors and noted Bowden s previous criminal history of credit card fraud and his continuing violations of the terms of his probation/release, it did not provide any further explanation for why it imposed a factors it considered. ten-month sentence or what Thus, the sentence is at least arguably both substantively and procedurally unreasonable. easily conclude sentencing that Bowden s sentence was However, we not plainly unreasonable because the sentence was within the recommended policy statement range and under the statutory maximum. Moreover, the record does not contain any basis on which to conclude that the imposed sentence is clearly or obviously unreasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Bowden, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Bowden requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Bowden. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 4 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
