US v. Tracy Andrews, Jr., No. 22-4744 (4th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-4744 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TRACY DEWAYNE ANDREWS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:22-cr-00191-FDW-DCK-1) Submitted: November 21, 2023 Decided: November 27, 2023 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: John G. Baker, Federal Public Defender, Charlotte, North Carolina, Melissa S. Baldwin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Dena J. King, United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tracy Dewayne Andrews, Jr., appeals the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and imposing a revocation sentence of time served and two additional years of supervision. On appeal, Andrews contends that the district court imposed an illegal sentence. Finding no error, we affirm. “A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release. [We] will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Patterson, 957 F.3d 426, 436 (4th Cir. 2020). Andrews argues that his revocation sentence exceeds the statutory maximum and is therefore illegal. Specifically, he contends that, because he was originally convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and sentenced to the then-statutory maximum term of 10 years’ imprisonment, * the court lacked statutory authority to sentence him to approximately 87 days’ time served on revocation of his supervised release. However, “18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) authorizes the revocation of supervised release even where the resulting incarceration, when combined with the period of time the defendant has already served for his substantive offense, will exceed the maximum incarceration permissible under the substantive statute.” United States v. Bruley, 15 F.4th 1279, 1283 (10th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the district court did not Since Andrews’ conviction in 2013, Congress has increased the maximum penalty for a § 922(g)(1) violation to 15 years’ imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(8). * 2 exceed its statutory authority by sentencing Andrews to time served, a sentence within the statutory maximum sentence set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Therefore, we affirm the revocation judgment. We deny Andrews’ motion to expedite the appeal. 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 3
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.
