Court Opinion

ID: 9892789
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-24 21:00:42.153945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:46:24.947190
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4112      Doc: 30         Filed: 10/23/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4112

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ANTOINE DESHAWN MILLER,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Charleston. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (2:20-cr-00092-1)

        Submitted: October 19, 2023                                   Decided: October 23, 2023

        Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Mary Claire Davis, FROST BROWN TODD LLP, Charleston, West
        Virginia, for Appellant. William S. Thompson, United States Attorney, M. Ryan
        Blackwell, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-4112      Doc: 30         Filed: 10/23/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Antoine Deshawn Miller appeals the 24-month sentence imposed upon the

        revocation of his supervised release. On appeal, Miller argues the upward-variant sentence

        is plainly unreasonable because the district court miscalculated the advisory policy

        statement range, did not address his nonfrivolous mitigating arguments, and failed to

        adequately explain the chosen sentence. 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). Miller’s 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.” Coston, 964 F.3d at 297 (internal quotation marks omitted); see 18 U.S.C.

        § 3583(e).

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4112       Doc: 30          Filed: 10/23/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

               Miller first argues the district court procedurally erred when calculating the advisory

        policy statement range by relying on a prior state conviction for marijuana possession to

        increase the severity of one of his violations from Grade C to Grade B. Our review of the

        record leads us to conclude that Miller waived his right to challenge the calculation of the

        advisory policy statement range on this basis. Miller not only confirmed that he did not

        object to the district court’s calculation of the policy statement range, but he also explicitly

        conceded, when discussing the relevant prior offense, that the district court had

        “[t]echnically . . . calculated the [G]uidelines appropriately” in relation to that offense. We

        have previously held that similar concessions amounted to waiver. See United States v.

        Boyd, 5 F.4th 550, 555 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing case where this court held a defendant

        waived an argument when he “explicitly stated at the sentencing hearing that he had no

        outstanding objections to a revised presentence report and agreed with the component of

        his sentence later challenged on appeal” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Because

        waived issues are “unreviewable,” Stokes v. Stirling, 64 F.4th 131, 141 (4th Cir. 2023), we

        do not reach this issue.

               As to Miller’s other arguments, we conclude his sentence is not plainly

        unreasonable. The district court considered the relevant statutory factors and thoroughly

        explained its rationale for imposing the above-policy statement range sentence,

        emphasizing that the statutory maximum sentence was necessary to account for Miller’s

        repeated noncompliance with the conditions of his release, his “egregious criminal

        behavior,” and his “dreadful criminal record.” Although the district court did not expressly

        address Miller’s argument regarding his prior marijuana possession offense, the court’s

                                                       3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4112      Doc: 30         Filed: 10/23/2023      Pg: 4 of 4

        explanation of the sentence adequately indicates that it considered that argument and found

        it unconvincing.

               We therefore affirm the 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