US v. Jerry Stephenson, Jr., No. 08-4369 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4369 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JERRY WAYNE STEPHENSON, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:02-cr-00222-BO-l) Submitted: December 3, 2008 Decided: December 29, 2008 Before TRAXLER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Banumathi Rangarajan, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jerry Wayne Stephenson, Jr., appeals his sentence of twelve months and one day imposed revoked his supervised release. after the district court We affirm. On appeal, Stephenson argues that the sentence imposed is plainly unreasonable because it does not further the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, and that the district court erred by sentence failing outside to the explain adequately Guidelines range. its imposition Stephenson of does a not contest the district court s decision to revoke his supervised release or its Guidelines calculations. The Government responds that the district court s sentence is not unreasonable. Because Stephenson did not object to the sentence or the district court s failure to articulate the reasoning, we review for plain error. 732 (1993). Cir. 2005), United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, In United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th we held that revocation sentences should be reviewed to determine whether they are plainly unreasonable with regard to those § 3553(a) factors applicable to supervised release revocation sentences. We recognized that analysis of a sentence imposed on revocation of supervised release involves both procedural Although the and district substantive court must at components. Id. consider Chapter the 438. Seven policy statements and the requirements of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 2 3583 (2006), the court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke its previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Although a sentencing court must provide a sufficient explanation of the sentence to allow effective review of [its] reasonableness on appeal, United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 657 (4th Cir. 2007) (probation revocation), the court need not robotically tick through § 3553(a) s every subsection, or explicitly discuss every § 3353(a) factor on the record. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). Our review of the record in this case leads us to conclude that the district court s reasons supporting its sentencing decision are sufficiently apparent from the record. We conclude that the sentence substantively unreasonable. is neither procedurally nor See United States v. Finley, 531 F.3d 288, 297 (4th Cir. 2008) (applying Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007), in reviewing a sentence to determine if it is plainly unreasonable). We dispense with therefore oral affirm argument Stephenson s because the sentence. facts and We 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.
