US v. Willie Saxby, No. 15-4345 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4345 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIE ANTHONY SAXBY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:11-cr-00132-NCT-1) Submitted: November 4, 2015 Decided: December 2, 2015 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. McClellan, IVEY, MCCLELLAN, GATTON & SIEGMUND, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Michael Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: In 2013, Willie Anthony Saxby pled guilty to passing and possessing counterfeit currency, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472 (2012), and the imprisonment, release. The district to be court followed district court sentenced him a 3-year term that while by found to 36 of months’ supervised Saxby was on supervised release, he violated the terms of his release by (1) failing to notify the probation officer ten days prior to moving from his marijuana approved and residence, using alcohol and in (2) testing excess. The positive district for court sentenced Saxby to 12 months’ imprisonment and an additional 24 months’ supervised release. In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Saxby’s counsel has filed a brief certifying appeal. issues. that there are no meritorious grounds for Saxby has filed a supplemental brief raising several We affirm the district court’s judgment. To revoke supervised release, a district court need only find a violation of a condition of release by a preponderance of the evidence. district 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2012). court’s ultimate decision to revoke supervised release for abuse of discretion.” Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015). factual findings are reviewed for clear error. that the district court’s factual 2 “We review a findings a defendant’s United States v. A district court’s Id. are We conclude not clearly erroneous and that the court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Saxby’s supervised release. “A district court has broad discretion when sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). imposing a United States “We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly omitted). unreasonable.” Id. (internal quotation marks Saxby’s sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment to be followed by 24 months’ statutory maximum. See supervised 18 U.S.C. release is within §§ 3559(a)(3), the 3583(b)(2), (e)(3), (h) (2012). “When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we must first determine whether it is unreasonable at all.” 2010). United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district considering court the statements and factors. Id. “Regardless below, or of adequately Sentencing the at explains Guidelines’ applicable 546-47; whether the within-Guidelines see the Chapter 18 U.S.C. 18 U.S.C. district sentence, sentence court it after Seven policy § 3553(a) (2012) § 3583(e) imposes must an place (2012). above, on the record an ‘individualized assessment’ based on the particular facts of the case before it.” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 3 U.S. 38, 50 (2007)). “A court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a post-conviction sentence, but it still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed.” Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks omitted). A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the court states a proper basis for concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 440 (4th Cir. 2006). United Only if we find a sentence to be unreasonable will we consider whether it is plainly so. Id. at 439. While the district court did not explicitly refer to the Sentencing Guidelines’ Chapter Seven policy statements, Saxby’s policy statement range, or the relevant § 3553(a) factors, the district court’s rationale surrounding its decision. is apparent from the context See United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 381 (4th Cir. 2006). Defense counsel advised the district court of Saxby’s correct policy statement range of 8 to 14 months’ imprisonment, and the sentence imposed falls within that range. its Additionally, the district court’s explanation of sentence, while not explicitly mentioning § 3553(a), referred to the nature and circumstances of Saxby’s violations and the need for the sentence to deter future violations. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(B). 4 See Moreover, the district court offered an individualized explanation of why it was sentencing Saxby to serve a term of imprisonment and an additional term of supervised release. Thus, we conclude that Saxby’s sentence is reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case, including the issues raised in Saxby’s pro se brief, and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment and deny as moot Saxby’s motion to expedite. This court requires that counsel inform Saxby, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Saxby 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 must state that a copy thereof was served on Saxby. 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 5

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.