US v. Roscoe Abell, No. 09-4100 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4100 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROSCOE ABELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:97-cr-00319-FDW-1) Submitted: September 23, 2010 Decided: November 10, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James S. Weidner, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF JAMES S. WEIDNER, JR., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roscoe imposed by release. Abell the appeals district the court twenty-four after revoking month his sentence supervised Abell s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), noting no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the sentence imposed was plainly unreasonable. Abell was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm. We supervised review a release sentence to imposed ensure that upon it is revocation not of plainly unreasonable. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. The 2010). determine whether first step the in sentence this is review requires unreasonable. us United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). initial inquiry takes a more deferential appellate to This posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than reasonableness review for guidelines sentences. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439). Only if the sentence is unreasonable do we proceed to the second step of the analysis to determine whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. A procedurally supervised reasonable release if the 2 Id. at 438-39. revocation district court sentence is considered the advisory policy statement range based upon Chapter Seven of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors applicable to supervised release revocation. 18 U.S.C. sentence § 3583(e); stated is a receive substantively proper the basis sentence 461 Crudup, reasonable for up at if concluding imposed, Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. F.3d to 438-40. the the the See Such district defendant statutory a court should maximum. A court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a post-conviction sentence, but it still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed. Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court sufficiently considered the advisory policy statement range of thirty to thirty-seven months imprisonment and the below statutory the policy sentencing statement factors range in and imposing within the a sentence statutory maximum set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West Supp. 2010). We therefore conclude that the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release is not unreasonable, much less plainly so. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, 3 of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such filing would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
