US v. Bobby Crews, No. 13-4594 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4594 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BOBBY EUGENE CREWS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:13-cr-00019-BO-1) Submitted: April 28, 2014 Before KEENAN Circuit Judge. and WYNN, Decided: Circuit Judges, and May 7, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bobby Eugene Crews was confined at the Federal Prison Camp at Butner, North Carolina. On October 11, 2012 while Crews was part of an afternoon landscaping crew, he walked away from the camp and into the nearby woods. and placed on escape status. He was discovered missing On October 19, 2012, Crews was apprehended near Greensboro, North Carolina. Crews pled guilty to escape from federal custody and was sentenced to a term of twelve months imprisonment, to run consecutive to the sentence he was arguing serving that offense at the level § 2P1.1(b)(3), the time district under which of his court U.S. provides escape. erred Sentencing for a by Crews not reducing Guidelines four-level appeals, his Manual reduction for escape from a non-secure community corrections center or similar facility. We affirm. We review the application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. United States v. Sarno, 24 F.3d 618, 623 (4th Cir. 1994); United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1989). Under the two-pronged test adopted in Sarno, the § 2P1.1(b)(3) reduction applies if: (1) the escape is from a non-secure facility; and (2) the non-secure facility is similar to a community corrections center, community treatment center or half-way house. 24 F.3d at 623. 2 Crews § 2P1.1(b)(3) community does not because a corrections half-way house. qualify prison center, for camp a is community reduction not similar treatment Id. at 623 & n.4 (citing cases). under to center a or Accordingly, the district court properly denied the reduction. For sentence. legal these reasons, we affirm Crews twelve-month We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions before this Court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
