Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04475/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04475-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Dennis Walls
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4475

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DENNIS WALLS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at 

Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:16-cr-00012-2)

Submitted: January 21, 2020 Decided: February 6, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory J. Campbell, CAMPBELL LAW OFFICE, Charleston, West Virginia, for 

Appellant. Michael B. Stuart, United States Attorney, Ryan A. Saunders, Assistant United 

States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4475 Doc: 23 Filed: 02/06/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Dennis Walls appeals the eight-month sentence imposed by the district court after 

revoking supervised release. He argues that his revocation sentence is plainly, 

substantively unreasonable, considering the purposes of supervised release. The 

Government disagrees, pointing to the district court’s thoroughness and emphasizing that 

Walls’ sentence is within the applicable policy statement range. 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 . . . unreasonable at all.” Id. 

Only if the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable must we determine 

whether it is plainly so. Id. at 208; United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656-57 (4th 

Cir. 2007). 

A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable when the district court considers 

the Chapter Seven policy statements and applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2018) factors and 

adequately explains the sentence imposed. Slappy, 872 F.3d at 207; see 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(e) (2018) (listing relevant factors). 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. Slappy, 872 F.3d at 207. “A sentence 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4475 Doc: 23 Filed: 02/06/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

within the policy statement range is presumed reasonable.” United States v. Padgett, 788 

F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

The parties do not dispute, and we agree, that the district court correctly calculated 

the policy statement range. Moreover, Walls’ argument does not surmount the 

presumption of reasonableness accorded his sentence. See id. We therefore conclude that 

the district court’s sentence is not procedurally or substantively unreasonable, much less 

plainly so, and we affirm.

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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4475 Doc: 23 Filed: 02/06/2020 Pg: 3 of 3