US v. Galen Shawver, No. 13-4405 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4405 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. GALEN CLIFTON SHAWVER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:00-cr-00262-TDS-2) Submitted: August 16, 2013 Decided: August 21, 2013 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James B. Craven, III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Randall S. Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: In 2001, a federal jury convicted Galen Clifton Shawver of several counts of mail and wire fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering. imprisonment followed He by was three sentenced years of to 132 months supervised of release. After his release from incarceration, the district court found that Shawver had violated the terms of his supervised release. The court revoked Shawver s supervised release and sentenced him to two months of imprisonment, followed by thirty-four months of supervised release. Shawver appeals. Finding no error, we affirm. Shawver argues that the district court discretion in revoking his supervised release. abuse of discretion. abused its We review for See United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999). The district court need only find a violation of a term of supervised release by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West Supp. 2013); see United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude the district court did not err in revoking Shawver s supervised release. Shawver also challenges the district court s below-Guidelines sentence of two months of imprisonment. We review a sentence imposed on revocation to determine whether the sentence was plainly unreasonable. 2 United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). Although a district court must consider the policy statements in 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 court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke its previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. citation omitted). Id. at 439 (internal quotation marks and We have reviewed the record and the relevant legal authorities and conclude that the two-month sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s order. We deny Shawver s motions to file a pro se supplemental brief and a pro se reply brief. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the 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.
