US v. Gary Ellington, Jr., No. 10-4868 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: <
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4868 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GARY W. ELLINGTON, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:05-cr-00083-REP-1) Submitted: April 14, 2011 Decided: June 8, 2011 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Mary E. Maguire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, Research and Writing Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Brandon M. Santos, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gary W. Ellington, Jr., pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon/user of controlled substance and one count of possession of marijuana. He was sentenced to a total of fifty-one months imprisonment and three years of supervised release. While on supervised release, Ellington violated several conditions of his supervised release. The district court revoked Ellington s supervised release and sentenced further him to supervised claiming that unreasonable. revocation months release. the in prison followed Ellington court s district appeals his sentence by no sentence, was plainly We affirm. This court of will affirm supervised a release sentence if it imposed is not after plainly United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th unreasonable. Cir. eighteen 2010). The first step in this review requires a determination of whether the sentence is unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). This initial inquiry takes a more deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than reasonableness review for [G]uidelines sentences. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Crudup, 461 F.3d standard of review at for 439) (applying probation 2 plainly revocation). unreasonable Only if the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable does the inquiry proceed to the second step of the analysis to determine whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-39. A supervised procedurally reasonable release if the revocation district sentence court is considered the advisory policy statement range based upon Chapter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors applicable to See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2006); supervised release revocation. Crudup, 461 reasonable if F.3d at the 438-40. district A sentence court stated a is substantively proper basis for concluding the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. 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 sentence provide marks we a statement Thompson, imposed. quotation record, must omitted). conclude that 595 After of F.3d reasons at thoroughly Ellington s 547 for (internal reviewing sentence the was the both procedurally and substantively reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 3 presented in the materials before the 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.
