UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4124
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JESSEE JAMES TURNER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones,
District Judge. (2:13-cr-00005-JPJ-PMS-1)
Submitted: October 13, 2015 Decided: October 22, 2015
Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine
Lee, Research and Writing Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellant. Anthony P. Giorno, United States Attorney, Jean B.
Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jessee James Turner appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking supervised release and sentencing him to a 12-month
sentence consecutive to his state sentence. He contends that
the length of the sentence and the decision to run the sentence
consecutively to an undischarged state sentence are both
procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Finding no error,
we affirm.
“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a
sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” United
States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). Accordingly,
in examining a revocation sentence, we “take[] a more
deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the
exercise of discretion than reasonableness review for
[Sentencing Guidelines] sentences.” United States v. Moulden,
478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks
omitted). We will affirm a revocation sentence that falls
within the statutory maximum, unless the sentence is “plainly
unreasonable.” United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40
(4th Cir. 2006). In conducting this review, we assess the
sentence for reasonableness, utilizing “the procedural and
substantive considerations” employed in evaluating an original
criminal sentence. Id. at 438. Only if a sentence is found
2
procedurally or substantively unreasonable will we “then decide
whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable.” Id. at 439.
A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the
district court properly calculated the policy statement range
contained in Chapter Seven of the Guidelines and considered the
Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2012) factors. Id. at 439; United States v. Padgett,
788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015). 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. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.
Under Chapter Seven, a court should fashion a revocation
sentence to “sanction primarily the defendant’s breach of
trust.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ch. 7, pt. A(3)(b)
(2014). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012), a court should
consider designated factors in § 3553(a) prior to imposing a
revocation sentence, including the nature and circumstances of
the offense and the history and characteristics of the
defendant, the sentencing range established by the applicable
policy statements, the need to deter future criminal conduct,
and the need to protect the public from further criminal
activity.
We conclude that the district court did not improperly
emphasize any particular factor and that it properly considered
3
Turner’s breach of trust in deciding to impose a sentence at the
top of the policy statement range. Also, we discern no error in
the district court’s decision to order the revocation sentence
to run consecutively to an undischarged state sentence. See
USSG § 7B1.3(f), p.s.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
4