US v. Calvin Lewis, No. 09-4460 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4460 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CALVIN LEWIS, a/k/a Boo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:03-cr-00394-DWD-14) Submitted: November 4, 2009 Decided: November 16, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles D. Lewis, THE HICKS GROUP, LLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Roderick C. Young, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Calvin Lewis appeals the district court s judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to thirty months of imprisonment, a sentence above the advisory guidelines range. He asserts that the sentence was greater than necessary to serve the purposes of sentencing and that the court failed to explain sufficiently its chosen sentence. While advisory the sentence sentencing Lewis guidelines received range, applicable statutory maximum sentence. the record leads us to We affirm. conclude is it the within is above the Moreover, our review of that the district court sufficiently considered the statutory factors and explained its reasons for imposing an above-guidelines sentence. States v. therefore Carter, find 564 that F.3d the supervised release is States v. Crudup, 461 325, 330 sentence not imposed plainly F.3d (4th Cir. upon See United 2009). We revocation of unreasonable. 433, 439-40 See Cir. (4th United 2006) (providing standard); see also United States v. Finley, 531 F.3d 288, 294 (4th unreasonable instructions Cir. 2008) standard, given in ( In we first Gall[ v. applying the determine, United States, plainly using 552 the U.S. 38 (2007)], whether a sentence is unreasonable. ). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument 2 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
