US v. Timothy Brown, No. 12-4716 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4716 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TIMOTHY JARRETT BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (2:10-cr-00077-1) Submitted: March 8, 2013 Decided: April 4, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl E. Hostler, PRIM LAW FIRM, Hurricane, West Virginia, for Appellant. Blaire L. Malkin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Timothy Jarrett Brown appeals the district court s order revoking his supervised release and imposing a sentence of twenty-four months imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether unreasonable the sentence district considering court imposed Brown s a mental plainly illnesses. Brown was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. A district court has broad discretion to impose sentence upon revoking a defendant s supervised release. States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). affirm a revocation unreasonable. Cir. 2006). sentence if it is not a United We will plainly United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439 (4th In making this determination, we first consider whether the sentence imposed is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Id. at 438-49. A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court has considered the advisory policy statement range and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors applicable to supervised release revocation. F.3d at 438-40. 461 A court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing 2 a post-conviction sentence, but it still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed. Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks omitted). A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the district stated a proper basis for its sentencing decision. F.3d at 440. substantively Only if a unreasonable sentence is will then sentence is plainly unreasonable. we found court Crudup, 461 procedurally decide whether or the Id. at 439. We have reviewed the revocation sentence and conclude that the sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The twenty-four-month sentence does not exceed the applicable statutory imprisonment. maximum of twenty-four months Further, the district court properly considered the advisory Guidelines policy statement range and applicable § 3553(a) factors. Moreover, the district court stated a proper basis for imposing the sentence, emphasizing the violent nature of Brown s offense and criminal history, deterrence, and the need to protect the public. the need for Accordingly, we need not address whether the revocation sentence was plainly unreasonable. Counsel should have also granted diminished capacity. questions a downward whether departure the district based on court Brown s No motion for a downward departure based on Brown s diminished capacity was raised in the district court. 3 Thus, we have reviewed this claim for plain error and find none. See United States v. Hamilton, 701 F.3d 404, 410 (4th Cir. 2012) (discussing standard of review). In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire record for therefore any meritorious affirm the issues district and court s have found none. judgment. This We court requires that counsel inform Brown, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Brown requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, 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 4