US v. Roger Cochran, Jr., No. 12-4409 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4409 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ROGER DALE COCHRAN, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:07-cr-00199-TLW-1) Submitted: October 4, 2012 Decided: October 16, 2012 Before AGEE, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael A. Meetze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Jean M. Popowski, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roger Dale Cochran, Jr., appeals the five month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. On appeal, is Cochran unreasonable. contends that his five-month sentence We affirm. We will affirm a sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release if it is within the applicable statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. United Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). whether a revocation sentence is States v. In determining unreasonable, we follow generally the procedural and substantive considerations used in reviewing original sentences. sentence procedurally or Id. at 438. substantively decide whether it is plainly so. Only if we find the unreasonable must we United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). Cochran s sentence is well below the statutory maximum of twenty-four months. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2006). Further, the sentence is procedurally reasonable: the district court considered both the Chapter 7 policy statements and the 18 U.S.C.A. permitted § 3553(a) to (West consider. Supp. See 2011) Crudup, factors 461 F.3d that at it was 438-40. Finally, the sentence is substantively reasonable, because the court sufficiently explained its 2 reasons for imposing the sentence, emphasizing the serious breach of trust that Cochran committed by repeatedly testing positive for illegal drugs. Cochran contends that the district court erred by not extending the term of his supervision. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(4) (2006), the district court was required to impose a sentence of imprisonment given Cochran s positive drug tests. To the extent that Cochran argued he should be entitled to the exception under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) (2006), the court properly addressed his contentions and did not err by concluding that the exception was not warranted in this instance. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 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.
