UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4328
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KEVIN WALKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson,
District Judge. (4:95-cr-00037-RAJ-3)
Submitted: November 22, 2013 Decided: December 9, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Ratliff, Mobile, Alabama, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente,
Acting United States Attorney, Eric M. Hurt, Assistant United
States Attorney, Alexander S. Mackler, Third Year Law Student,
Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
In 1997, Kevin Lamont Walker pleaded guilty to
conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846 (2006). The district court originally sentenced Walker to
262 months of imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised
release, but later reduced the sentence to 120 months of
imprisonment on the Government’s motion. After Walker’s release
from incarceration, the district court revoked Walker’s
supervised release and sentenced him to twelve months of
incarceration, followed by four years of supervised release.
Following his second release, the district court found that
Walker had again violated the terms of his supervised release.
The court revoked Walker’s supervised release and sentenced him
to twenty-four months of imprisonment. Walker appeals. Finding
no error, we affirm.
Walker argues that the district court improperly
considered 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors that are not to be
considered when determining a revocation sentence. We review a
sentence imposed on revocation to determine whether the sentence
was plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d
433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). Although a district court must
consider the policy statements in Chapter Seven of the United
States Sentencing Guidelines along with the statutory
requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (2006) and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
2
(2006), “the court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke its
previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the
statutory maximum.” Id. at 439 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). We have reviewed the record and have
considered Walker’s arguments and discern no reversible error.
We therefore conclude that Walker’s sentence is not plainly
unreasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We
also grant Walker’s motion filed August 19, 2013 to the extent
it seeks to withdraw his prior motions filed on June 4 and 6,
2013. We deny the motion to the extent that Walker seeks to
file a pro se supplemental brief, and deny Walker’s November 8,
2013, motion to file a pro se reply brief. 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3