Court Opinion

ID: 9905135
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-28 21:00:40.161217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:03.798879
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4744      Doc: 38         Filed: 11/27/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4744

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        TRACY DEWAYNE ANDREWS, JR.,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:22-cr-00191-FDW-DCK-1)

        Submitted: November 21, 2023                                Decided: November 27, 2023

        Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: John G. Baker, Federal Public Defender, Charlotte, North Carolina, Melissa
        S. Baldwin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN
        NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Dena J. King,
        United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF
        THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4744      Doc: 38         Filed: 11/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Tracy Dewayne Andrews, Jr., appeals the district court’s order revoking his

        supervised release and imposing a revocation sentence of time served and two additional

        years of supervision. On appeal, Andrews contends that the district court imposed an

        illegal sentence. Finding no error, we affirm.

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

        supervised release. [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). Andrews argues that his revocation sentence exceeds the statutory

        maximum and is therefore illegal. Specifically, he contends that, because he was originally

        convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and sentenced to the then-statutory maximum

        term of 10 years’ imprisonment, * the court lacked statutory authority to sentence him to

        approximately 87 days’ time served on revocation of his supervised release. However, “18

        U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) authorizes the revocation of supervised release even where the

        resulting incarceration, when combined with the period of time the defendant has already

        served for his substantive offense, will exceed the maximum incarceration permissible

        under the substantive statute.”       United States v. Bruley, 15 F.4th 1279, 1283

        (10th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the district court did not

               *
                 Since Andrews’ conviction in 2013, Congress has increased the maximum penalty
        for a § 922(g)(1) violation to 15 years’ imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(8).

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4744      Doc: 38        Filed: 11/27/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        exceed its statutory authority by sentencing Andrews to time served, a sentence within the

        statutory maximum sentence set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).

               Therefore, we affirm the revocation judgment. We deny Andrews’ motion to

        expedite the appeal.    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