Court Opinion

ID: 9396880
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 21:00:33.216765+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:19.871214
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4559      Doc: 26         Filed: 05/22/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4559

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        DOUGLAS A. PANNELL, JR.,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:21-cr-00168-LCB-1)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                           Decided: May 22, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Peter M. Wood, LAW OFFICE OF PETER WOOD, Raleigh, North Carolina,
        for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Margaret M. Reece, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4559      Doc: 26         Filed: 05/22/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Douglas A. Pannell, Jr., appeals the 12-month sentence imposed upon the revocation

        of his supervised release. On appeal, Pannell asserts that his sentence is unreasonable

        because the court (1) did not explain why it imposed a sentence different from the one

        Pannell requested; and (2) predetermined the sentence it would impose at Pannell’s

        previous supervised release revocation hearing. We affirm.

               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).

        To determine whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we first consider

        whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable, evaluating “the same

        procedural and substantive considerations that guide our review of original sentences” but

        taking “a more deferential appellate posture than we do when reviewing original

        sentences.” United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up).

        “Only if we find a revocation sentence unreasonable do we consider whether it is plainly

        so.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 208 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks

        omitted).

               In imposing the sentence at issue here, the district court considered the relevant

        statutory factors and thoroughly explained its decision to reject Pannell’s request for a

        sentence of time served. In doing so, the district court explained that it had considered the

        18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offense and

        Pannell’s history, observing that Pannell has a substantial drug problem and twice tested

        positive for cocaine and marijuana but, despite his age, refuses to utilize the provided

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4559      Doc: 26         Filed: 05/22/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        addiction recovery resources. The court also acknowledged that Pannell was given an

        opportunity at his last revocation hearing to address his addiction and maintain his

        employment but nonetheless continued to use narcotics. On this record, we conclude that

        the court addressed the “central thesis” of Pannell’s argument for a lesser sentence. See

        United States v. Powers, 40 F.4th 129, 137 (4th Cir. 2022).            And while the court

        admonished Pannell at his previous revocation hearing that he would be afforded no more

        opportunities if Pannell continued to violate the terms of his supervised release, the record

        confirms that the court appropriately based the sentence here on Pannell’s arguments and

        his failure to comply with his release conditions, rather than on a predetermination of a

        particular sentence. See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006)

        (“[D]istrict courts should focus on the defendant’s failure to follow the court-imposed

        conditions of supervised release as a breach of trust when imposing revocation sentences.”

        (cleaned up)).

               We therefore conclude that Pannell’s sentence is not unreasonable, let alone plainly

        so. 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