Court Opinion

ID: 9930424
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 21:00:55.350353+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:18:01.731892
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4165      Doc: 20         Filed: 02/05/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-4165

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        SAMUEL WALLACE GOSS, III,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:14-cr-00473-CCE-1)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 5, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Thomas K. Maher, AMOS TYNDALL PLLC, Carrboro, North Carolina, for
        Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Kyle D. Pousson, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-4165      Doc: 20         Filed: 02/05/2024      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Samuel Wallace Goss, III, appeals the 24-month sentence imposed following the

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

        unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately consider his serious drug

        addiction and imposed a term greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals

        articulated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Finding no error, we affirm.

               “A sentencing court has broad discretion to impose a revocation sentence up to the

        statutory maximum.” United States v. Coston, 964 F.3d 289, 296 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal

        quotation marks omitted). We “will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory

        maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Patterson, 957 F.3d 426, 436

        (4th Cir. 2020). When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable,

        we first “determine whether the sentence is unreasonable at all.” Coston, 964 F.3d at 296

        (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) (quoting United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438-39 (4th Cir. 2006)).

               “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), and the explanation indicates “that the

        court considered any potentially meritorious arguments raised by the parties,” Patterson,

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4165       Doc: 20         Filed: 02/05/2024      Pg: 3 of 3

        957 F.3d at 436-37 (internal quotation marks omitted).           “A revocation sentence is

        substantively reasonable if, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the court states an

        appropriate basis for concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed.”

        Coston, 964 F.3d at 297 (internal quotation marks omitted).

               The record reflects that the district court adequately explained the sentence and

        stated an appropriate basis for concluding that Goss should receive the sentence it imposed.

        Contrary to Goss’ arguments on appeal, the court considered Goss’ mitigating argument

        regarding his history of drug addiction, but it ultimately found that the maximum available

        sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment, to run consecutively to Goss’ related sentence for

        possession of methamphetamine, was warranted in light of the § 3553(a) factors.

        Specifically, the court emphasized that Goss attempted to evade drug testing, resisted drug

        abuse treatment, and committed new crimes while on supervised release. Therefore, in

        light of the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that Goss’ sentence is not plainly

        unreasonable.

               Accordingly, we 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

                                                      3