US v. Wayne Scupp, No. 15-4106 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4106 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WAYNE MICHAEL SCUPP, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:09-cr-00524-RBH-4) Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 23, 2015 Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. William E. Day, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Pursuant to a plea of guilty, Wayne Michael Scupp was convicted of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and to steal and possess stolen mail, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (2012). He was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, followed by a 5-year term of supervised release. engaged in new criminal Shortly after his release, Scupp conduct, leading revocation of his supervised release. Scupp admitted the alleged to a petition for At the revocation hearing, violations. The district court sentenced him to 12 months of imprisonment, followed by a 1-year term of supervised release. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but seeking review of the reasonableness of Scupp’s revocation sentence. Scupp was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The Government elected not to file a brief. Finding no error, we affirm. “A district court has broad discretion sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” when imposing a United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). A revocation sentence that and “is within the statutory maximum unreasonable” will be affirmed on appeal. is not plainly Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In so evaluating a sentence, we assess it for reasonableness, utilizing “the 2 procedural and substantive considerations” sentence. 2006). employed in evaluating an original criminal United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. A 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 in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012). Id. at 439. 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 the district court states a proper basis for concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. Only if we find a sentence to be procedurally or substantively unreasonable will we determine whether the sentence is “plainly” so. Id. at 439. Here, the district court considered the parties’ arguments, Scupp’s allocution, the statements of his friends and family, and the relevant statutory factors before sentencing Scupp below the policy statement range. The district court provided an explanation tailored to Scupp, focusing specifically on the nature of his violations of supervised release, his extensive criminal record, his mental health issues, and his family’s statements to the court. We therefore conclude that Scupp’s 3 sentence is neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. We have examined the entire record in accordance with the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. This court requires that counsel inform Scupp, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Scupp requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in and materials legal before court for leave to withdraw from Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Scupp. facts this We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the 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.
