US v. Octavius Fryar, No. 12-4371 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4371 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. OCTAVIUS FRYAR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (7:11-cr-00146-H-1) Submitted: November 27, 2012 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. NIEMEYER, Decided: Circuit December 4, 2012 Judges, and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Octavius Fryar appeals the district court s judgment finding he violated his conditions of supervised release, revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twentyfour months in prison. Fryar argues only that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. This court Finding no error, we affirm. will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed statutory range and is not plainly unreasonable. v. Crudup, district 461 court F.3d 433, must 438-40 Cir. the consider (4th Chapter United States 2006). Seven While a policy statements, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Ch. 7, Pt. B, and the statutory requirements and factors applicable to revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2012), the district court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke supervised release and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. A procedurally supervised reasonable Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-39. release if the revocation district court sentence is considered the Chapter 7 advisory policy statements and the § 3553(a) factors it is permitted to consider in a supervised release revocation case. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439-40. And although the district court need not explain the reasons for imposing a revocation sentence in as much detail as when it 2 imposes an original sentence, it still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). reasonable if A the revocation district sentence stated court is proper a substantively basis for concluding the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. sentence is found Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. procedurally or substantively Only if a unreasonable will this court then decide whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. the record Id. at 439 (emphasis omitted). and have considered discern no sentencing error. the We have reviewed parties arguments and We therefore conclude that Fryar s sentence is not plainly unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the 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.
