US v. Maurice Dewar, No. 13-4619 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4619 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MAURICE DEWAR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:04-cr-00144-H-1) Submitted: May 16, 2014 Decided: May 21, 2014 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Shailika K. Shah, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Maurice Dewar appeals the district court s order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to an elevenmonth term of incarceration. On appeal, Dewar argues that the district court imposed a plainly unreasonable sentence because the court should have ordered that he undergo substance abuse treatment rather than imposing a term of incarceration. We affirm. A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release. States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). United Accordingly, in examining a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release, we take[] a more deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than reasonableness review for guidelines sentences. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). that falls within the We will affirm a revocation sentence statutory maximum, sentence to be plainly unreasonable. 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). sentence, we first consider unless we find the United States v. Crudup, In reviewing a revocation whether the sentence is unreasonable, following the same general principles we apply to our review of original sentences. 2 Id. at 438. Only if we find a sentence to be procedurally or substantively unreasonable will we determine whether the sentence is plainly so. A revocation sentence is procedurally Id. at 439. reasonable if the district court has considered both the applicable 18 U.S.C. ยง 3553(a) (2012) factors and the policy statements contained in Chapter Seven of the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. The district court also must provide an explanation of its chosen sentence, although this explanation need not be as detailed or specific as is required for an original sentence. (4th Cir. 2010). reasonable if concluding that imposed. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 A the revocation district the court defendant sentence states a is substantively proper should receive that Dewar s basis the for sentence Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. We cannot conclude eleven-month revocation sentence is unreasonable, much less plainly so. Our review of the record reveals that the district court provided Dewar several opportunities to participate in substance abuse and mental health treatment but that, despite these opportunities, Dewar was unable to refrain from using marijuana and, later, cocaine. in a more intensive Although Dewar requested that he be placed treatment program, the court was not required to select treatment over incarceration, particularly in light of Dewar s history of failed efforts to achieve sobriety. 3 In any event, the court fully recognized Dewar s drug addiction, recommending that Dewar be exposed to the most intense drug treatment possible during the term of this incarceration. Finally, we conclude that the court properly imposed a term of incarceration to sanction [Dewar] for failing to abide by the conditions of the court-ordered supervision and to punish the inherent breach of trust indicated by [his] behavior. Moulden, 478 F.3d at 655 (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the sentence imposed by the district court was not plainly unreasonable. 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 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.
