US v. Anthony Cameron, No. 14-4806 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4806 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY WAYNE CAMERON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:95-cr-00266-JAB-2) Submitted: April 13, 2015 Before KING and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and April 17, 2015 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen F. Wallace, WALLACE LAW FIRM, High Point, North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony Wayne Cameron appeals his sentence of 51 months’ imprisonment imposed by the district court upon revocation of his supervised release. On appeal, Cameron’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising as a potential issue whether the district court properly sentenced Cameron. Although notified of his right to do so, Cameron has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. “A district court has broad discretion We affirm. when sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, sentence that “is ‘plainly unreasonable’” 640 within (4th the will Cir. be A maximum affirmed on a United States 2013). statutory imposing revocation and is appeal. not Id. (quoting United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006)). In so reasonableness, utilizing considerations” sentence. A evaluating employed a sentence, “the in we procedural evaluating an assess and 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). (2012) factors enumerated Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. 2 in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) The district court also must provide an explanation for 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 imposed. to be the district the court defendant states should Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. procedurally or a proper receive basis the 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 properly considered the arguments from counsel, allocution from Cameron, the statutory maximum sentences upon revocation, and the § 3553(a) factors enumerated in § 3583(e) before sentencing policy statement range. for its sentence was Cameron at the bottom of the While the district court’s explanation not lengthy, it provided a sentence tailored to Cameron, focusing specifically on the nature and circumstances therefore of his conclude violations that of Cameron’s supervised sentence release. is We neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable and, therefore, is not plainly so. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. therefore affirm the district 3 court’s judgment We revoking supervised release. This court requires that counsel inform Cameron, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. that a petition be filed, but counsel If Cameron requests believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Cameron. 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.
