Court Opinion

ID: 9397893
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-26 21:01:38.350507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:28.561570
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4632      Doc: 26         Filed: 05/25/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4632

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JAMIL RASHEEM WEAKS,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cr-00435-TDS-1)

        Submitted: May 23, 2023                                           Decided: May 25, 2023

        Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Ryan M. Gaylord, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Jacob D. Pryor,
        Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
        Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4632      Doc: 26         Filed: 05/25/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Jamil Rasheem Weaks appeals the 24-month sentence imposed upon the revocation

        of his supervised release. On appeal, Weaks argues that the revocation sentence is

        procedurally unreasonable. We affirm.

               “We affirm a revocation sentence so long as it is within the prescribed statutory

        range and is not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Coston, 964 F.3d 289, 296 (4th

        Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). Weaks’ sentence does not exceed the

        applicable statutory maximum.      Accordingly, the remaining question is whether the

        sentence is plainly unreasonable. When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly

        unreasonable, we first “determine whether the sentence is unreasonable at all.” Id. (internal

        quotation marks omitted).      “In making this determination, we follow generally the

        procedural and substantive considerations that we employ in our review of original

        sentences, with some necessary modifications to take into account the unique nature of

        supervised release revocation sentences.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th

        Cir. 2017) (cleaned up). “A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district

        court adequately explains the chosen sentence after considering the Sentencing Guidelines’

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

        factors.” Id. (footnotes omitted); see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).

               We conclude that Weaks’ sentence is procedurally reasonable. The district court

        properly calculated an advisory policy statement range of 12 to 18 months’ imprisonment,

        considered the relevant statutory factors, and engaged with and explained its rejection of

        Weaks’ mitigating arguments. Furthermore, the district court thoroughly explained its

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4632      Doc: 26        Filed: 05/25/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        rationale for imposing the above-policy statement range sentence, emphasizing that the

        statutory maximum sentence was necessary to account for Weaks’ history of

        noncompliance and recidivism, the severity of his repeated breaches of the court’s trust,

        and the need to protect the public from his dangerous behavior.

              We therefore 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

                                                    3