US v. Travis Strickland, No. 14-4769 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4769 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TRAVIS STRICKLAND, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:11-cr-00378-WO-1; 7:98-cr-00082BO-14) Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 22, 2015 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Todd Allen Smith, LAW OFFICE OF TODD ALLEN SMITH, Graham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: A jury convicted Travis Strickland of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012), and use of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2012). He was sentenced to 248 months’ imprisonment, followed by a 5-year term of supervised release. The district court subsequently granted Strickland a sentence reduction to probation officer supervised time served. After petitioned release. At for the his release, revocation revocation admitted the alleged violations. The Strickland’s of Strickland’s hearing, Strickland district court sentenced him to 9 months of imprisonment, followed by a 3-year term of supervised pursuant release. to Anders questioning reasonable. On appeal, v. whether counsel California, Strickland’s has 386 filed U.S. a 738 revocation brief (1967), sentence is Strickland was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm. “A district court has broad discretion when sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, sentence that “is ‘plainly unreasonable’” 640 within (4th the will Cir. statutory be A maximum on a United States 2013). affirmed imposing revocation and appeal. is not Id. (quoting United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2 2006)). In so reasonableness, utilizing considerations” sentence. A evaluating employed a sentence, “the in we procedural evaluating assess and an it for substantive original criminal Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438. revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court has considered the policy statements contained in Chapter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors enumerated (2012). Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. provide an explanation for in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) The district court also must its chosen sentence, but the explanation “need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a post- conviction sentence.” United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if concluding that be district the court defendant procedurally or states should Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. imposed. to the a proper receive the basis for sentence Only if we find a sentence substantively unreasonable determine whether the sentence is “plainly” so. will we Id. at 439. Here, the district court considered the parties’ arguments, Strickland’s allocution, the statutory maximum sentence upon revocation, and the relevant statutory factors before sentencing Strickland district at court the top further of the policy provided 3 an statement explanation range. tailored The to Strickland, focusing circumstances therefore of specifically his conclude violations that of on the nature release. supervised Strickland’s and We sentence is neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable and, therefore, is not plainly so. We have examined the entire record in accordance with the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. court. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district This court requires that counsel inform Strickland, in writing, of the right to petition United States for further review. the Supreme Court of the If Strickland requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion state that a copy thereof was served on Strickland. must We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 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.
