US v. Michael Old, No. 10-4338 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on February 9, 2012.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4338 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL DENNIS OLDS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:96-cr-00030-F-2) Submitted: January 28, 2011 Decided: February 15, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Following a hearing, the district court revoked Michael Olds supervised release and sentenced him to thirty months in prison. Olds now appeals, claiming that his sentence is plainly unreasonable. We affirm. At his revocation hearing, the district court found that Olds charged. had committed Olds criminal five Grade history C release category was violations III, and as his recommended Guidelines range upon revocation of release was 5-11 months. After hearing from counsel and Olds, the court imposed a thirty-month sentence based on the need to protect society from Olds ongoing drug use and his need for intensive drug therapy. We will affirm a sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed statutory range and is not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir 2006). Here, our review of the record reveals that the maximum of five years. sentence falls within the statutory See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West 2000 & Supp. 2010). Further, the sentence is procedurally reasonable: in sentencing Olds, the district court considered both the Chapter 7 policy statements and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors that it was permitted to consider. at 438-40; 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e). 2 See Crudup, 461 F.3d Notably, two of those factors (the need to protect society and his need for intensive drug therapy, court s see 18 stated U.S.C. reasons recommended range. reasonable, for the § 3553(a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D)) for a sentence sentence is Finally, court imposing the adequately explained were the above the substantively the sentence. See Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. We therefore affirm. We dispense with oral argument 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.
