US v. Leroy Ragin, No. 12-4961 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4961 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LEROY RAGIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:90-cr-00025-MOC-1) Submitted: July 16, 2013 Decided: July 30, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank A. Abrams, LAW OFFICE OF FRANK ABRAMS, PLLC, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, William M. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Leroy Ragin appeals the district court s judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a fourteen-month prison term. Ragin challenges this sentence, arguing that it is plainly unreasonable. A district We affirm. 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). a United We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within the plainly unreasonable. 437, 439-40 (4th applicable statutory maximum and not United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, Cir. 2006). In determining whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we first assess the sentence for unreasonableness, follow[ing] generally the procedural and substantive considerations that we employ in our review of original sentences. A procedurally supervised reasonable Id. at 438. release if the revocation district court sentence is considered the Sentencing Guidelines Chapter 7 advisory policy statements and the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2013) factors it is permitted to consider in a supervised release revocation case. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2013); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. district Such court a sentence stated a is substantively proper 2 basis reasonable for if the concluding the defendant should receive statutory maximum. is found the sentence imposed, Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. procedurally or substantively up to the Only if a sentence unreasonable will then decide whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. at 439. we Id. A sentence is plainly unreasonable if it is clearly or obviously unreasonable. In this Id. case, there is no dispute that Ragin s fourteen-month prison sentence does not exceed the applicable statutory maximum sentence of five years imprisonment, 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a) (2006); 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West Supp. 2013), and Ragin does not assert committed any procedural errors. that the district court Rather, he contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of fact that he appears to have over-served his initial sentence. Ragin cites no authority, however, for his claim that it was plainly unreasonable and manifestly unjust for the district court to have imposed a term of imprisonment, followed by an additional forty-six months of supervised release. We have previously noted that it is unthinkable to lend support to any judicial decision which permits the establishment of a line of credit for future crimes. Miller v. Cox, 443 F.2d 1019, 1021 (4th Cir. 1971) (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, upon review of the parties briefs and the record, we conclude that the fourteen-month prison sentence, 3 which represents a downward variance from the advisory policy statement range of thirty to thirty-seven months imprisonment, is not unreasonable. policy statement The district court considered the advisory range and Ragin s arguments that he had overserved his sentence by as much as four years, and imposed a downward variance in order to take Ragin s over-service into account. § 3553(a) It is apparent that the court also considered relevant factors, addressing on the record the nature and circumstances of Ragin s violative behavior and the need for the sentence to afford adequate deterrence conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(B). to Ragin s criminal We conclude that the district court adequately explained its rationale for imposing the fourteen-month prison considerations in doing so. * sentence and relied on proper Based on the broad discretion that a district court has to revoke a term of supervised release and impose a prison term up to the statutory maximum, revocation sentence is not clearly unreasonable. Ragin s Therefore, we conclude that Ragin s sentence is not plainly unreasonable. * Even assuming that over-service of Ragin s sentence was not a proper basis for the downward variance, consideration of this factor benefited Ragin. Under the party presentation principle . . . an appellate court may not alter a judgment to benefit a nonappealing party. Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, 244-45 (2008) (holding that, in the absence of a Government cross-appeal, an appellate court may not sua sponte correct a district court error if the correction would be to the defendant s detriment). 4 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 5
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.
