US v. William Drake, No. 10-4869 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4869 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM PRESTON DRAKE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:05-cr-00022-JAB-3) Submitted: June 10, 2011 Decided: June 28, 2011 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas H. Johnson, Jr., GRAY, JOHNSON & LAWSON, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Preston Drake appeals the twenty-four month sentence he received upon revocation of his supervised release. The district court has broad discretion to impose a sentence upon revoking a defendant s supervised release. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). court will affirm a sentence imposed after Thus, this revocation of supervised release if it is within the governing statutory range and not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). Before determining whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable we must decide whether it is unreasonable. Id. at 438. In doing so, we follow generally the procedural and substantive considerations used in reviewing original sentences. Id. For the reasons stated below, we affirm. A sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court has considered the policy statements contained in Chapter 7 of the Guidelines and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, id. at 440, and has adequately explained the sentence chosen, though it need not explain the sentence in as much detail as when imposing the original sentence. 595 F.3d at 547. Thompson, A sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court states a proper basis for its imposition of a sentence up to the statutory maximum. 2 Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. If, after considering the above, we are convinced sentence is not unreasonable, we will affirm. this initial inquiry, this court takes a that the Id. at 439. In more deferential posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than it does in applying the reasonableness review to post- United States v. Moulden, 478 conviction guidelines sentences. F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). Under our deferential standard sentence is not plainly unreasonable. of review, Drake s After the district court expressly considered the applicable Chapter 7 policy statement and the advisory revocation Guidelines range of twenty-one to twenty-four months, the district court Guidelines twenty-four month sentence. its rationale § 3553(a) for the factors, sentence, a within- It thoroughly explained drawing including imposed on Drake s several of history the and characteristics, emphasizing his history of recidivism; the need to protect the public from his further crimes; and the need to deter Drake district satisfy from court the met continued its appellate criminal obligation court that to activity. set [it] has Thus, forth enough considered the to the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority, Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007), and stated a proper basis for imposition of the chosen sentence, Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. 3 its Accordingly, we conclude month sentence is reasonable. court s judgment. facts and materials legal before that Drake s twenty-four We therefore affirm the district We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the 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.
