US v. Cory Fennell, No. 12-4647 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4647 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CORY DEXTER FENNELL, a/k/a Ace, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:04-cr-00440-FL-1) Submitted: February 14, 2013 Decided: February 21, 2013 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Cory Dexter Fennell appeals from the district court s judgment revoking his supervised thirty-six-month prison term. release sentence district upon court revoking has a imposing a Fennell challenges this sentence, arguing that it is plainly unreasonable. A and broad We affirm. discretion defendant s to supervised impose a release. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within the applicable statutory maximum and not plainly unreasonable. 437, 439-40 (4th United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, Cir. 2006). In determining whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we first assess the sentence for unreasonableness, follow[ing] generally the procedural and substantive considerations that we employ in our review of original sentences. A procedurally supervised reasonable Id. at 438. release if the revocation district sentence court is considered the Sentencing Guidelines Chapter 7 advisory policy statements and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors it is consider in a supervised release revocation case. permitted to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e) (West 2006 & Supp. 2011); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. Although a district court need not explain the reasons for imposing a revocation sentence in as much detail as when it 2 imposes an original sentence, it still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed. Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks omitted). A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court stated a proper basis for concluding the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. Only if a sentence unreasonable plainly will is we found then unreasonable. Id. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. procedurally decide at whether or 439. A substantively the sentence sentence is plainly unreasonable if it is clearly or obviously unreasonable. Fennell contends that his sentence is is Id. procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to consider and explain why it rejected his arguments for the imposition of a six-month sentence. merit. made We conclude that this contention is without At the revocation hearing, Fennell s counsel and Fennell note of his accomplishments on release, raised the possibility that his drug use on release was related to his untreated mental illness, and described his living environment and a family dispute without explaining why these circumstances merited a revocation sentence of six months imprisonment. Fennell also contends that the district court failed to provide a sufficient explanation for its decision to impose a sentence statement three times range. above Assuming the top without 3 of the deciding advisory that policy Fennell s revocation sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to provide an adequate explanation grounded in relevant § 3553(a) factors for imposing a thirty-six-month prison term, we conclude that the sentence is not plainly unreasonable because the sentence does not exceed the applicable statutory maximum, 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(1) (2006); 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3), and Fennell does not point to facts establishing that the sentence is clearly or obviously unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this 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.
