Court Opinion

ID: 9961891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-20 21:00:36.833907+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:09.449295
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4459      Doc: 27         Filed: 04/19/2024    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-4459

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        CHRISTOPHER MALACHI MURDOCK,

                            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-00278-CCE-2)

        Submitted: April 18, 2024                                         Decided: April 19, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Sandra Payne Hagood, LAW OFFICE OF SANDRA PAYNE HAGOOD,
        Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kyle David Pousson, Assistant United States
        Attorney, Margaret McCall 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-4459      Doc: 27          Filed: 04/19/2024     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Christopher Malachi Murdock appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his

        supervised release and sentencing Murdock to 30 months’ imprisonment. Counsel has

        filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no

        meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court properly

        concluded that Murdock committed the first of the three supervised release violations

        alleged in the revocation petition and the reasonableness of Murdock’s sentence. The

        Government has declined to file a brief. Although notified of his right to file a pro se

        supplemental brief, Murdock has not done so. We affirm.

               To revoke supervised release, the district court need only find a violation of a

        supervised release condition by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3);

        United States v. Dennison, 925 F.3d 185, 191 (4th Cir. 2019). We “review[] a district

        court’s decision to revoke a defendant’s supervised release for abuse of discretion,” its

        underlying factual findings for clear error, and unpreserved challenges for plain error.

        Dennison, 925 F.3d at 190. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court

        did not abuse its discretion in finding that Murdock committed the first of the three charged

        violations—the only one which Murdock contested—and revoking Murdock’s supervised

        release accordingly. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

        § 7B1.3(a)(1), p.s. (2021) (“Upon a finding of a Grade A . . . violation, the court shall

        revoke probation or supervised release.”).

               “A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of

        supervised release.” United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). “We will

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4459      Doc: 27          Filed: 04/19/2024     Pg: 3 of 4

        affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly

        unreasonable.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal

        quotation marks omitted). “When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly

        unreasonable, we must first determine whether it is unreasonable at all.” United States v.

        Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010). “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.” Slappy, 872 F.3d at 207 (footnote omitted); see 18 U.S.C.

        § 3583(e).

               A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the court states a proper basis

        for concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory

        maximum. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 440 (4th Cir. 2006). “A court need not

        be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing

        a post-conviction sentence, but it still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence

        imposed.” Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks omitted). Only if a

        sentence is either procedurally or substantively unreasonable is a determination then made

        as to whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d

        652, 657 (4th Cir. 2007).

               We conclude that Murdock’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable.

        The district court correctly determined the applicable policy statement range, considered

        the relevant statutory factors, acknowledged Murdock’s mitigation arguments, and gave

        sufficiently detailed reasons for selecting its within-range sentence.

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4459       Doc: 27          Filed: 04/19/2024      Pg: 4 of 4

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

        found no meritorious issues for appeal.        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

        revocation judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Murdock, in writing, of the

        right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Murdock

        requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,

        then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s

        motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Murdock. 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