US v. Jerry Johnson, No. 10-4519 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4519 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JERRY JOHNSON, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00104-IMK-5) Submitted: April 21, 2011 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. WYNN, Decided: Circuit Judges, and May 4, 2011 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger D. Curry, CURRY AMOS & ASSOCIATES, L.C., Fairmont, West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Zelda E. Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jerry Johnson appeals the 151-month sentence imposed following the district court s revocation of his probation. appeal, Johnson contends that plainly unreasonable sentence. the district court imposed On a Finding no reversible error, we affirm. We treat sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised release and probation similarly and therefore review the sentences imposed in either situation under the same plainly unreasonable standard. 655-56 (4th Cir. 2007). United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, When a defendant violates terms of his probation, the district court may revoke the probationary period and resentence the defendant to a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum for the original offense. (2006); Moulden, 478 F.3d at 657. 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a) The district court has broad discretion to impose a probation revocation sentence. 478 F.3d at 657. Thus, we assume a deferential Moulden, appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of [that] discretion, United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted), and will affirm unless the sentence is plainly unreasonable in light of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. 2 Id. at 437. Our first step is to decide whether the sentence is unreasonable. the Id. at 438. procedural and In doing so, we follow generally substantive reviewing original sentences. reasonable if the district considerations in A sentence is procedurally Id. court employed has considered the policy statements contained in Chapter Seven of the Guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors, id. at 439, and has adequately explained the sentence chosen, though it need not explain the sentence in as much detail as when imposing the original sentence. 478 F.3d at 657. Moulden, A sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court states a proper basis for its imposition of a Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. sentence up to the statutory maximum. If, after considering the above, we determine that the sentence is not unreasonable, we will affirm. Id. at 439. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the revocation sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. Accordingly, we deny Johnson s motion to file a pro se supplemental brief and affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
