US v. Thomas Madison, No. 12-4709 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4709 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. THOMAS MCKENNY MADISON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:06-cr-00497-HEH-2) Submitted: March 29, 2013 Decided: August 13, 2013 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Valencia D. Roberts, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Roderick Charles Young, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas court s judgment supervised McKenny finding release, Madison he appeals violated revoking his the filed (1967), a brief stating under that Anders there are v. district of release, his and Madison s attorney California, no the conditions supervised sentencing him to fifteen months in prison. has from meritorious 386 U.S. 738 issues, but raising whether the court applied the proper standard in finding the violations, whether a preponderance of the evidence supported the alleged commission of a new crime violation by obstruction of justice, and whether Madison s sentence is plainly unreasonable. We review a district court s decision to revoke an individual s supervised release for abuse of discretion. States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999). United To revoke supervised release, a district court need only find a violation of a condition of supervised release by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West 2000 & Supp. 2012); United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992). This burden simply requires the trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence. United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 631 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2 The court reviews findings for clear error. 410 (4th Cir. 2010). the court reviews the district court s factual United States v. White, 620 F.3d 401, A factual finding is clearly erroneous if all the evidence and is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 336-37 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). court to conclude differently. that it It is not enough for the would have decided the case Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985). Madison argues allegedly applying whether the a that probable Government justice/commission of the a new district cause court standard proved the crime violation to erred determine obstruction proper preponderance of the evidence standard. by instead of of the This claim is reviewed for plain error because it was not raised below. See Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1428-29 (2009). He also argues that the evidence was insufficient to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he committed the obstruction of justice violation. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion or plainly err in determining that the Government s evidence established that Madison violated his supervised release by committing a new 3 crime of obstruction of justice. Madison admitted several other violations. We also discern no error in the district decision to impose a fifteen-month sentence. that the district court improperly court s Madison argues considered 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors that are not to be considered for a revocation sentence; namely, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense[.] § 3553(a)(2)(A); contends that see his 18 U.S.C. sentence § 3583(e) was 18 U.S.C. (2006). substantively He also unreasonable because it was greater than necessary in light of the applicable § 3553(a) factors. We 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, 438-40 (4th Cir. 2006). district court statements, U.S. must consider Sentencing the Guidelines Chapter Manual Seven ch. 7, While a policy pt. B (2011), and the statutory requirements and factors applicable to revocation sentences under § 3553(a) and § 3583(e) in fashioning a sentence after revoking supervised release, the district court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke the previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-39. 4 A supervised release procedurally reasonable if Guidelines Chapter advisory § 3553(a) factors 7 that it the revocation district is policy 461 F.3d at 439-40. is considered the statements permitted supervised release revocation case. Crudup, court sentence to and consider the in a See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e); A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court stated a proper basis for concluding the defendant should receive the sentence imposed. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. Although the district 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 imposed. Cir. statement of reasons for the sentence United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th 2010) sentence a (internal is found quotation marks procedurally or omitted). Only substantively if a unreasonable will this court then decide whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable[.] We have arguments Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439 (emphasis omitted). reviewed and the discern record no and have reversible considered error. We Madison s therefore conclude that Madison s sentence is not plainly unreasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Madison, in writing, of the right 5 to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Madison requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Madison. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 6
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.
