US v. Kevin Walker, No. 13-4328 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4328 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. KEVIN WALKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:95-cr-00037-RAJ-3) Submitted: November 22, 2013 Decided: December 9, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Ratliff, Mobile, Alabama, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, Acting United States Attorney, Eric M. Hurt, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexander S. Mackler, Third Year Law Student, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: In 1997, Kevin Lamont Walker pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). The district court originally sentenced Walker to 262 months of imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release, but later reduced the sentence imprisonment on the Government s motion. from incarceration, supervised release the and incarceration, followed Following second his district sentenced by four release, 120 months of After Walker s release court him years the to revoked to of twelve Walker s months supervised district court of release. found that Walker had again violated the terms of his supervised release. The court revoked Walker s supervised release and sentenced him to twenty-four months of imprisonment. Walker appeals. Finding no error, we affirm. Walker argues that the district court improperly considered 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors that are not to be considered when determining a revocation sentence. We review a sentence imposed on revocation to determine whether the sentence was plainly unreasonable. 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d Although a district court must consider the policy statements in Chapter Seven of the United States Sentencing Guidelines along with the statutory requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (2006) and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 2 (2006), the court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke its previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. citation Id. at 439 (internal quotation marks and omitted). We have reviewed the record and have considered Walker s arguments and discern no reversible error. We therefore conclude that Walker s sentence is not plainly unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s order. We also grant Walker s motion filed August 19, 2013 to the extent it seeks to withdraw his prior motions filed on June 4 and 6, 2013. We deny the motion to the extent that Walker seeks to file a pro se supplemental brief, and deny Walker s November 8, 2013, motion to file a pro se reply brief. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials We dispense with legal before contentions the court are and argument would not aid in 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.
