United States v. Antonio Campbell

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4003

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

ANTONIO JERMAINE CAMPBELL, a/k/a Terrell Quinton Campbell,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:05-cr-01191-PMD-1)

Submitted: July 31, 2012 Decided: August 6, 2012

Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cameron J. Blazer, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Nettles,
United States Attorney, M. Rhett DeHart, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Antonio Jermaine Campbell appeals the district court’s

judgment sentencing him to twenty-four months’ imprisonment for

violating the terms and conditions of his supervised release.

On appeal, Campbell argues that his revocation sentence is

plainly unreasonable because the district court erred in finding

that he committed a Grade B violation rather than a Grade C

violation. We affirm.

This court will affirm a sentence imposed after

revocation of supervised release if the sentence is within the

applicable statutory maximum and is not “plainly unreasonable.”

United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006).

In determining whether a revocation sentence is unreasonable,

“we follow generally the procedural and substantive

considerations” used in reviewing original sentences. Id. at

438. Only if we find the sentence procedurally or substantively

unreasonable must we decide whether it is plainly so. United

States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). Campbell

asserts only procedural error on appeal.

A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if

the district court considered the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual (“USSG”) Chapter 7 (2011) advisory policy statements and

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. Crudup, 461 F.3d at

440. Only if a sentence is found unreasonable will this court

2
“then decide whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable.” Id.

at 439. A sentence is “plainly” unreasonable if it is clearly

or obviously unreasonable. Id.

Campbell argues that the district court committed

procedural error in calculating his Guidelines range because it

incorrectly found that he had committed a Grade B violation

instead of a Grade C violation. “[T]he grade of violation is to

be based on the defendant’s actual conduct.” USSG § 7B1.1,

cmt. n.1; see United States v. Jolibois, 294 F.3d 1110, 1114

(9th Cir. 2002) (violation of terms of supervised release is

determined based on defendant’s conduct rather than an

indictment or conviction). At the revocation hearing, Campbell

admitted that he had assaulted and injured his father, but

argued that the conduct should be considered a Grade C, rather

than a Grade B, violation. The district court found that

Campbell’s conduct constituted aggravated assault, which under

South Carolina law is punishable by a maximum of twenty years’

imprisonment. S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-600(B)(2) (2010). We

conclude that Campbell failed to demonstrate that the court

erred in finding that he committed a Grade B violation.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED