US v. Woodrow Brown, II, No. 12-4312 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4312 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. WOODROW WILSON BROWN, II, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (4:06-cr-00026-F-1) Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 26, 2012 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Michael McGuinness, THE MCGUINNESS LAW FIRM, Elizabethtown, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Woodrow Wilson Brown, II, appeals from the revocation of his supervised sentence. release and the resulting sixty-month Brown s counsel has filed an Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) brief, stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. The Government did not file a brief. filed a pro se supplemental brief. Brown We affirm. This court reviews the district court s revocation of supervised States v. release district Pregent, supervised court for 190 need release by abuse F.3d only a of 279, find discretion. 282 a (4th Cir. violation preponderance of 1999). of the United See a term evidence. The of 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West Supp. 2012); see United States v. Armstrong, 187 F.3d 392, 394 (4th Cir. 1999). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining by a preponderance of the evidence that Brown violated the terms of his supervised release. In his pro se supplemental brief, Brown contends that his sixty-month sentence is exponentially higher than Sentencing Guidelines range applicable to the revocation. the A 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). We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is 2 within the applicable unreasonable. plainly reasonableness, original and is not plainly In determining whether a revocation sentence unreasonable, substantive maximum United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). is statutory we first follow[ing] considerations generally that Id. sentences. assess at we the the employ 438. A sentence procedural in our review supervised for and of release revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court considered the Sentencing Guidelines Chapter 7 advisory policy statements and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors that it is permitted to consider in a supervised See Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. revocation case. release Although the court need not explain the reasons for imposing a revocation sentence in as much detail as when it imposes an original sentence, it still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed. quotation marks Thompson, 595 omitted). A F.3d at 547 revocation (internal sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court stated a proper basis for concluding the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. Only if a unreasonable sentence will we plainly unreasonable. is found then Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. procedurally decide Id. at 439. 3 whether or the substantively sentence is After revocation review sentence of the not is record, we plainly conclude that unreasonable. the The sixty-month prison term does not exceed the applicable maximum allowed by statute and was supported by the district court s reasoning. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(h) (West Supp. 2012). The district court considered the argument of Brown s counsel, the Guidelines advisory addressing on the range, record and relevant Brown s § complete 3553(a) disregard factors, for court, the revocation system, and the probation office. the See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(C); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Ch. 7, Pt. A, introductory cmt. 3(b) (2011). The district court adequately explained its rationale for imposing the sentence, and the reasons relied upon are proper bases for the sentence imposed. Accordingly, we conclude that Brown s sentence was reasonable, and we affirm the district court s order revoking supervised release and imposing the sixty-month prison sentence. We have reviewed Brown s remaining claims in his pro se informal brief and conclude that they are without merit. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. This court requires that counsel inform Brown, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Brown requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes 4 that such a petition 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 Brown. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
