US v. Charles Galloway, No. 09-4674 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4674 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES CURTIS GALLOWAY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:97-cr-00067-BR-1) Submitted: June 28, 2010 Before KING and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and August 18, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Charles Curtis Galloway appeals the district court s imposition of a fifty-seven month sentence following revocation of his supervised release. the district court On appeal, Galloway contends that imposed a plainly unreasonable sentence because it failed to address his arguments for a lower sentence. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. The district court has broad discretion to impose a sentence upon revoking a defendant s supervised release. States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). United We will affirm unless the sentence is plainly unreasonable in light of the applicable 18 U.S.C. ยง 3553(a) (2006) factors. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). Our first step in reviewing a sentence imposed upon a revocation sentence of is supervised release unreasonable. Id. is at to decide 438. In whether doing so, the we generally follow the procedural and substantive considerations employed in reviewing original sentences. Id. A district court commits significant procedural error where it fail[s] to adequately explain the chosen sentence. Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). While the district court need not explain the reasons for the sentence in as much detail as when imposing the original sentence, it still must provide a statement of reasons for the 2 sentence imposed. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, the district court should address the defendant s nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a sentence different from the advisory sentencing range. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). In some cases, a district court s reasoning for imposing a within-range sentence may be clear from context . . . including the court s statements to the defendant throughout the sentencing hearing. Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547. Unless the district court completely fails to indicate any reasons for its sentence, [w]e may be hard-pressed to find any explanation for within-range, revocation sentences insufficient given the amount of deference sentences. we afford Id. district reasonable. when imposing these If we determine that the sentence is not unreasonable, we will affirm. We courts conclude that Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. Galloway s revocation sentence is While the district court s explanation was brief, its rationale is clear it imposed a sentence at the top of Galloway s Guidelines range because of his history of supervised release violations. This rationale also implicitly rejects Galloway s argument for a below-Guidelines sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
