US v. Mamadou Jallow, No. 16-4241 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4241 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MAMADOU JALLOW, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:13-cr-00126-D-1) Submitted: November 14, 2016 Before GREGORY, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: and MOTZ and November 21, 2016 DUNCAN, Circuit Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elliot Sol Abrams, CHESHIRE PARKER SCHNEIDER & BRYAN, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mamadou revoking Jallow his appeals supervised the release district and court’s sentencing judgment him to the authorized statutory maximum term of 24 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Jallow challenges the district court’s rationale for imposing the statutory maximum term of imprisonment, asserting that the selected sentence runs afoul of United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638 (4th Cir. 2013). We have supervised routinely release We affirm. recognized revocation, that, “the in the sentencing context court of a retains broad discretion to impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum.” (4th Cir.) United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (ellipsis and internal quotation cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 494 (2015). marks omitted), “We will not disturb a district court’s revocation sentence unless it falls outside the statutory maximum or is otherwise plainly unreasonable.” (internal quotation marks omitted). sentence, we utilize the familiar Id. In reviewing a revocation procedural and substantive considerations employed for evaluating the reasonableness of an original criminal sentence, but “we strike a more deferential appellate posture than we do when reviewing original sentences.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court considered the advisory policy statement range 2 and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) supervised release revocation. 461 F.3d 433, substantively 438–40 if applicable to Id.; United States v. Crudup, (4th reasonable factors Cir. the 2006). district A court sentence is “sufficiently stated a proper basis” for the selected sentence, up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. Only if we determine that a revocation sentence is unreasonable need we consider “whether it is plainly so.” Padgett, 788 F.3d at 373. In exercising its sentencing discretion, the district court “should sanction primarily the defendant’s breach of trust, while taking into account, to a limited degree, the seriousness of the underlying violator.” violation and the Webb, 738 F.3d at 641. criminal history of the In determining the length of a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012) requires a sentencing court to consider all but two of the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The followed record this calculating confirms process Jallow’s in that the district sentencing policy statement court faithfully Jallow. After properly range, hearing argument from both attorneys, and allowing Jallow to allocute, the court announced several bases for imposing on Jallow the statutory maximum term of imprisonment. The most significant of these reasons was that Jallow egregiously breached the court’s trust when, while on supervised release, he repeatedly engaged in the 3 same criminal conduct for which he was initially convicted and sentenced. fact The severity of the breach was exacerbated by the that Jallow’s supervised release revoked for committing a similar crime. had previously been These facts established Jallow’s staunch refusal to abide by the terms and conditions of his supervised release, as well as his determination to flout the court’s authority. We thus readily uphold the revocation sentence as reasonable. See Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440 (holding that imposition of statutory maximum term of imprisonment was substantively reasonable, given that the district court expressly relied on defendant’s “admitted pattern of violating numerous conditions of his supervised release,” despite several extensions of leniency by the district court). Against this backdrop, we consider Jallow’s argument that the district court erred, under Webb, in imposing the statutory maximum term of imprisonment available in this case. the defendant being found violation. received to have a 32-month committed 738 F.3d at 640. a revocation Grade A In Webb, sentence supervised release This was near the bottom of Webb’s policy statement range and thus presumptively reasonable. at 642. The primary issue after in Webb was whether a Id. district court’s reference to § 3553(a) sentencing factors not identified in § 3583(e) renders a sentence per se plainly unreasonable, and we rejected this contention. 4 procedurally Id. at 641-42 (holding “that [the] mere reference to such considerations does not render a revocation sentence procedurally unreasonable when those factors are relevant to, and considered in conjunction with, the enumerated § 3553(a) factors”). Jallow seeks to demonstrate the unreasonableness of his sentence by comparing the conduct leading to the revocation of his term of supervised release to that at issue in Webb. But this argument fails to appreciate the considerable discretion judges have in selecting a revocation sentence and overemphasizes the significance of the court’s use of the word “felonious” in its explanation for the selected sentence. Thus, we are not persuaded by this assignment of error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal 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.
