US v. Thomas Kinlaw, III, No. 13-4375 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4375 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. THOMAS JAVIE KINLAW, III, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:09-cr-00076-BO-2) Submitted: December 13, 2013 Decided: September 8, 2014 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas Javie Kinlaw, III, pled guilty to possession of a sawed-off shotgun and aiding and abetting. In May 2010, he was sentenced to a term of forty-two months imprisonment and three years of supervised release. After his release from imprisonment, the district court found that Kinlaw violated the terms of his supervised release and sentenced him statutory maximum of twenty-four months incarceration. to appeals. the Kinlaw Finding no error, we affirm. A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). affirm a revocation sentence if it is within maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). the We will statutory United States v. In making this determination, we first consider whether the sentence imposed is procedurally or Only find if we substantively the unreasonable. sentence whether it is plainly so. unreasonable Id. must at 438-39. we decide United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 657 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439). Kinlaw argues that the district court improperly considered 18 U.S.C. ยง 3553(a) (2012) factors that should not be taken into account that when his determining sentence is a revocation substantively 2 sentence, and unreasonable. contends We have reviewed the reversible sentence record error. is not and Kinlaw s Accordingly, plainly arguments and find conclude that Kinlaw s we unreasonable. See United States no v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir. 2013). We therefore affirm the district court s order. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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.
