US v. Thomas Stephens, No. 13-4163 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4163 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. THOMAS CARVER STEPHENS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 13-4164 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. THOMAS CARVER STEPHENS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington and Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:98-cr-00049-F-1; 5:98-cr-00083F-1) Submitted: October 7, 2013 Decided: Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. October 9, 2013 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In 1998, Thomas Carver Stephens pleaded guilty in two separate cases to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2006), and possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). The district court sentenced Stephens to 168 months of imprisonment for the bank robbery conviction and a concurrent 120 months of imprisonment for the firearm conviction, supervised release. followed by three years of After his release from incarceration, the district court found that Stephens had violated the terms of his supervised release. The court revoked Stephens supervised release and sentenced him to twenty-four months of imprisonment on each appeals. conviction, to be served concurrently. Stephens Finding no error, we affirm. Stephens argues that the revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable as the district court failed to properly consider his need for substance abuse treatment in sentencing him above the advisory Guidelines range. imposed on revocation to determine We review a sentence whether the sentence was plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). Although a district court must consider the in policy statements Chapter Seven of the United States Sentencing Guidelines along with the statutory requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (2006) and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), the 3 court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke its previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. Id. at 439 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed the record and the relevant legal authorities and conclude that the sentence is reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s order. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
