US v. Adam Womack, No. 14-4124 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4124 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ADAM WOMACK, a/k/a Ace, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:07-cr-00205-JAG-1) Submitted: August 19, 2014 Before NIEMEYER Circuit Judge. and KING, Decided: Circuit Judges, and August 29, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt, Appellate Attorney, Carolyn V. Grady, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Jessica D. Aber, Richard D. Cooke, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Adam Womack appeals the thirty-six-month imposed upon the revocation of supervised release. sentence We affirm. A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence release. United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). We will affirm upon a revocation revocation of sentence supervised if it is within the statutory maximum and not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). We first consider whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. at 438. In making this initial inquiry, we take a Id. more deferential posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than when conducting reasonableness review for Guidelines sentences. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). Only if we find a sentence unreasonable must we decide if it is plainly so. Id. at 657; see also United States v. Bennett, 698 F.3d 194, 200 (4th Cir. 2012). While a district court must explain a revocation sentence, the court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as sentence. it must be when imposing a post-conviction United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). We reject Womack s claim that the district court did not meaningfully consider the advisory 2 revocation range of eight-fourteen months. At the revocation hearing, the court heard arguments of counsel as to what an appropriate sentence would be and was well aware that the sentence proposed by the United States was more than three times the maximum of the policy range. The court, in its discretion, determined that a sentence within that range would be too low in light of both relevant 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e) (2012) factors, which it thoroughly discussed, and, especially, Womack s breach of the court s trust. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ch. 7, pt. A, § 3(b) (2012); United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d at 641. We find is no merit to Womack s disproportionately high committed Class A release sentences that were Class C violations. claim lower when that compared violations than the and his with sentence offenders received sentence he who revocation received for Such a comparison is simply not meaningful. See United States v. Chandia, 675 F.3d 329, 342 (4th Cir. 2012). We accordingly affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the 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.
