US v. Maunwell Ervin, No. 14-4005 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4005 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MAUNWELL JAAVAR ERVIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:00-cr-00489-HMH-2) Submitted: August 21, 2014 Decided: August 28, 2014 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, E. Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Maunwell Jaavar Ervin appeals the district court s judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a thirtyfour-month term of imprisonment. to Anders v. California, 386 Following our review pursuant U.S. 738 (1967), we directed supplemental briefing on whether the district court adequately explained Ervin s sentence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the revocation of Ervin s supervised release, vacate his sentence, and remand for resentencing. Generally, we will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed statutory range and not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). In determining whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we first consider whether the sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Id. at 438. To be procedurally reasonable, the district court must, among other things, adequately explain the sentence and provide an individualized assessment based on the facts. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Although [a] court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a post-conviction sentence, . . . it still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal 2 quotation marks revocation of assurance that omitted). supervised the An explanation release sentencing should court of sentence upon provide . . . . . . considered the ยง 3553(a) factors with regard to the particular defendant before him, and also considered any potentially meritorious arguments raised by the parties with regard to sentencing. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 657 (4th Cir. 2007). Here, the Government concedes that the district court neglected to address Ervin s request that his revocation sentence run concurrently with his undischarged state term of imprisonment. explanation Nor for did the Ervin s district sentence. court offer Accordingly, any other although we affirm the revocation of supervised release, we vacate Ervin s sentence and remand for resentencing. * See Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547-48. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED * By our disposition, we indicate no appropriate sentence to be imposed on remand. 3 view as to the
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.
