UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-4647
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICKY AARON STAMEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, Senior District Judge. (5:10-cr-00062-FDW-DSC-1)
Submitted: June 28, 2019 Decided: July 15, 2019
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Martinez, Federal Public Defender, Ann L. Hester, Caryn Devins Strickland,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH
CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. R. Andrew Murray, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ricky Aaron Stamey appeals the 24-month upward-variant sentence imposed by
the district court upon revocation of his supervised release. On appeal, Stamey argues
that the court did not sufficiently explain the chosen sentence, improperly considered the
Government’s argument with respect to the impact of United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d
237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc) on Stamey’s original sentence, and did not consider his
nonfrivolous arguments for a within-policy-statement range sentence. 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). “We
will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly
unreasonable.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal
quotation marks omitted). “To consider whether a revocation sentence is plainly
unreasonable, we first must determine whether the sentence is procedurally or
substantively unreasonable.” Id.
“A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court adequately
explains the chosen sentence after considering the . . . Chapter Seven policy statements
and the applicable [statutory sentencing] factors,” id. (footnote omitted), and “explain[s]
why [any] sentence outside of the [policy statement] range better serves the relevant
sentencing [factors],” id. at 209 (internal quotation marks omitted); see 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e) (2012) (specifying 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors relevant to supervised
release revocation). Furthermore, the court also “must address the parties’ nonfrivolous
arguments in favor of a particular sentence, and if the court rejects those arguments, it
2
must explain why in a detailed-enough manner that this [c]ourt can meaningfully
consider the procedural reasonableness of the revocation sentence imposed.” Slappy, 872
F.3d at 208. “[W]here a court entirely fails to mention a party’s nonfrivolous arguments
in favor of a particular sentence, or where the court fails to provide at least some reason
why those arguments are unpersuasive, even the relaxed requirements for revocation
sentences are not satisfied.” Id. at 209. Only if a sentence is either procedurally or
substantively unreasonable is a determination then made as to whether the sentence is
plainly unreasonable. Id. at 208.
We conclude that Stamey’s upward-variant revocation sentence is procedurally
reasonable. The district court weighed the appropriate factors when it considered
Stamey’s history and characteristics, his breach of the court’s trust, and the need for
adequate deterrence and to protect the public. Moreover, the record does not support
Stamey’s assertion that the court improperly considered the Government’s argument
regarding the impact of our decision in Simmons on Stamey’s original sentence. See
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 329 (4th Cir. 2009). As for Stamey’s nonfrivolous
arguments, our review of the record reveals that the district court considered those
arguments when it acknowledged Stamey’s employability, his family support system, the
role he plays in his children’s lives, his struggles with substance abuse, and his need for
treatment. See United States v. Gibbs, 897 F.3d 199, 205 (4th Cir. 2018).
3
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s revocation 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