Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-04176/USCOURTS-ca4-16-04176-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shadarryl Turner
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4176

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

SHADARRYL TURNER, a/k/a D, a/k/a Ditto, a/k/a Van Ditto, 

a/k/a Shad,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (5:09-cr-00316-F-1)

Submitted: October 26, 2016 Decided: November 23, 2016

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Jennifer C. 

Leisten, Research and Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Jon Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, 

Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United 

States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4176 Doc: 32 Filed: 11/23/2016 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Shadarryl Turner appeals from the district court’s judgment 

revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 24 months’ 

imprisonment. On appeal, Turner challenges his sentence. We 

affirm. 

We review sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised 

release to determine whether they “fall[] outside the statutory 

maximum” or are “plainly unreasonable.” United States v. 

Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks 

omitted), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 494 (2015). “In determining 

whether a sentence is plainly unreasonable, we first decide

whether the sentence is unreasonable[,] . . . follow[ing] 

generally the procedural and substantive considerations that we 

employ in our review of original sentences.” United States v. 

Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). “Only if a 

revocation sentence is unreasonable must we assess whether it is 

plainly so.” Padgett, 788 F.3d at 373.

A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the 

district court considered the policy statements in Chapter Seven 

of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual and the applicable 

§ 3553(a) factors. Id.; see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012). The 

court must provide an adequate statement of reasons for the 

revocation sentence it imposes, but this statement need not be 

as specific or as detailed as that required in imposing an 

Appeal: 16-4176 Doc: 32 Filed: 11/23/2016 Pg: 2 of 4
3

original sentence. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 

(4th Cir. 2010); see United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 642 

(4th Cir. 2013) (“[M]ere reference to [factors omitted from 

§ 3583(e)] does not render a revocation sentence procedurally 

unreasonable when those factors are relevant to, and considered 

in conjunction with, the enumerated § 3553(a) factors.”). A 

revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the court 

stated a proper basis for concluding that the defendant should 

receive the sentence imposed. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. The 

sentence must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” 

to satisfy the goals of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); see 18 

U.S.C. § 3583(e). However, “the sentencing court retains broad 

discretion to . . . impose a term of imprisonment up to the 

statutory maximum.” Padgett, 788 F.3d at 373 (internal 

quotation marks omitted).

Our review of the record reveals no procedural or 

substantive error by the district court. After properly 

calculating the policy statement range, the court considered 

counsels’ arguments, the Chapter Seven policy statements, and 

the relevant § 3553(a) factors, and adequately explained 

Turner’s sentence. The court’s passing reference to promoting 

respect for the law, in the context of the court’s reasoning as 

a whole, does not render the sentence plainly unreasonable. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

Appeal: 16-4176 Doc: 32 Filed: 11/23/2016 Pg: 3 of 4
4

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

Appeal: 16-4176 Doc: 32 Filed: 11/23/2016 Pg: 4 of 4