US v. William Johnston, No. 12-4453 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4453 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM RAY JOHNSTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:99-cr-00472-JFM-1) Submitted: December 14, 2012 Decided: December 27, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wyda, Federal Public Federal Public Defender, Rod J. Rosenstein, United Assistant United States Appellee. Defender, LaKeytria Felder, Assistant Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. States Attorney, Martin J. Clarke, Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: In 2001, William Ray Johnston was sentenced to 130 months of imprisonment for being a felon in possession of a firearm and to five years of supervised release thereafter. On October 12, 2010, Johnston was sentenced to time served for his first violation of supervised release, which was the five days from October 1 to October 5, 2010. In 2012, Johnson was convicted of subsequent release violations and was sentenced to sixty months sentence of imprisonment. raising two issues: He (1) appeals whether this the five-year district court erred by imposing a sentence that exceeded the maximum term of imprisonment allowed by statute, given its failure to account for time served on a prior revocation; and (2) whether sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable. his For the reasons that follow, we vacate and remand for resentencing. The Government concedes that Johnston was sentenced five days beyond the five-year maximum sentence by virtue of his first revocation sentence. Thus, we vacate and remand for resentencing so that Johnston s total sentence will not be in excess of five years. 968, 970-71 (8th version of 18 maximum term release is Cir. U.S.C. of sixty See United States v. Hergott, 562 F.3d ยง 2009) (noting 3583(e)(3) imprisonment months for minus 2 any under (2006) that revocation time the applicable the of served statutory supervised on previous revocations related to the same conviction). A sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum is prejudicial even if only for a minimal amount of time. Glover v. United States, 531 U.S. 198, 203 (2001). Next, Johnston alleges that his sentence was otherwise procedurally and substantively unreasonable. This court will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed statutory range and is not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). We find no other reversible error and decline to order the district sentencing hearing on remand. court to conduct another A sixty-month sentence would be within Johnston s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 51-63 months, as argued by the Government on appeal. We find no reason not to apply the appellate presumption of correctness allowed for a Guidelines range sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Accordingly, we vacate consistent with this opinion. and remand for resentencing We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED 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.
