Court Opinion

ID: 9375085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 21:00:55.443219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:55.843932
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4465      Doc: 38         Filed: 02/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4465

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        FLOYD RAY SCALES, JR.,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cr-00340-TDS-1)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                 Decided: February 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Angela H. Miller, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4465      Doc: 38        Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

              Floyd Ray Scales, Jr., appeals the one year and one day term of imprisonment

        imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. On appeal, Scales argues that this

        below-policy-range sentence is plainly unreasonable. He contends that the district court

        incorrectly weighed the sentencing factors, giving undue weight to the seriousness of his

        supervised release violations while discounting the strength of his mitigating arguments.

        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, the district court considered the relevant statutory factors

        and thoroughly explained its decision rejecting Scales’ request to continue on supervised

        release. The court explained that it was varying downward from Scales’ 21-to-27-month

        policy statement range in recognition of his mitigating arguments and the “tremendous

        progress” he had made on supervision. However, the court emphasized that Scales had

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4465      Doc: 38           Filed: 02/23/2023   Pg: 3 of 3

        admitted to distributing drugs for more than a year while on supervision—a significant

        breach of the court’s trust—and that the imposed sentence was necessary to afford adequate

        deterrence and protect the public.

               We conclude that Scales’ 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