US v. Elijah Grant, No. 16-4417 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4417 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ELIJAH GRANT, a/k/a Box, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:14-cr-00017-RJC-16) Submitted: December 9, 2016 Decided: December 16, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, SHEDD, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Amy K. Raffaldt, MACE FIRM, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Elijah Grant was charged with violating various conditions of his supervised release. At a hearing at which Grant admitted committing the violations, the district court revoked release and sentenced Grant to 12 months in prison. attorney has California, sentence filed 386 is a brief U.S. 738 reasonable in accordance (1967), but with questioning concluding meritorious issues for appeal. Grant appeals. that Anders whether there are His v. the no Grant was advised of his right to file a pro se brief but has not filed such a brief. We affirm. We will uphold “a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not ‘plainly unreasonable.’” States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013) United (quoting United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006)). The record statutory establishes maximum § 3583(e)(3) (2012). that term The of Grant three remaining was sentenced years, question see is within 18 the U.S.C. whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. “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. Only if we find a sentence to be unreasonable will we 2 consider whether it is “plainly” so. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. A revocation district court sentence considered is procedurally the Chapter reasonable Seven policy if statement range and the applicable statutory sentencing factors. revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the Id. the A court stated a proper basis for concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. Id. “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.’” United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (quoting United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 657 (4th Cir 2007)). We conclude that Grant’s substantively reasonable. sentence is procedurally and The district court stated that it had considered relevant § 3553(a) factors, and the court was aware of Grant’s policy statement range of 6-12 months. court provided a sufficiently individualized fashioning the revocation sentence. Further, the assessment in In this regard, the court was especially troubled by Grant’s persistent drug use. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. therefore affirm. This court 3 requires that counsel We inform Grant, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Grant 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 Grant. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 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.
