[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
62 views5 pages

Unpublished

The court affirmed the district court's judgment revoking Christopher Watkins's supervised release and sentencing him to six months in prison. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Watkins's supervised release based on his violation of conditions. The court also found Watkins's sentence to be reasonable and within statutory limits. It rejected Watkins's arguments that his arrest was unlawful and that he was entitled to a probable cause hearing, finding his arrest and the revocation proceedings complied with applicable law.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
62 views5 pages

Unpublished

The court affirmed the district court's judgment revoking Christopher Watkins's supervised release and sentencing him to six months in prison. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Watkins's supervised release based on his violation of conditions. The court also found Watkins's sentence to be reasonable and within statutory limits. It rejected Watkins's arguments that his arrest was unlawful and that he was entitled to a probable cause hearing, finding his arrest and the revocation proceedings complied with applicable law.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4759

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL WATKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (4:00-cr-00043-HCM-1)

Submitted:

December 21, 2011

Decided:

January 5, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy
Anderson,
ANDERSON
&
ASSOCIATES,
Virginia
Beach,
Virginia, for Appellant.
Brian James Samuels, Assistant United
States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Christopher

Michael

Watkins

appeals

the

district

courts judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing


him to six months in prison.

Watkinss attorney has filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),


asserting, in his opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal but raising the issue of whether Watkins was unlawfully
arrested and denied a probable cause hearing for a supervised
release violation.

Watkins was notified of his right to file a

pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.


We

review

district

courts

We affirm.
judgment

revoking

supervised release and imposing a term of imprisonment for abuse


of discretion.
Cir. 1992).

United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th

To revoke supervised release, a district court need

only find a violation of a condition of supervised release by a


preponderance of the evidence.

18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(3) (2006).

We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised


release if it is within the prescribed statutory range and not
plainly unreasonable.
439-40 (4th Cir. 2006).

United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433,


We first consider whether the sentence

is procedurally or substantively unreasonable.


this

initial

inquiry,

we

take

more

Id. at 438.

deferential

In

posture

concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than


reasonableness review for Guidelines sentences.
2

United States

v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007).

Only if we find

the sentence procedurally or substantively unreasonable must we


decide whether it is plainly so.

Id. at 657.

While a district court must consider the Chapter Seven


policy

statements

and

the

statutory

factors

applicable

to

revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), 3583(e) (2006),


the court need not robotically tick through every subsection,
and ultimately, the court has broad discretion to revoke the
previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the
statutory maximum.

Id. at 656-57.

Moreover, while a district

court must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence, the


court

need

not

be

as

detailed

or

specific

when

imposing

revocation sentence as when imposing a post-conviction sentence.


United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).
We

have

reviewed

the

record

and

conclude

that

the

district court did not err or abuse its discretion in revoking


Watkinss supervised release, and his sentence is reasonable.
Watkins did not dispute the factual allegations in the petition
on supervised release, and the district court was required to
revoke his supervised release.

See U.S.C. 3583(g) (2006).

The district court correctly determined his advisory Guidelines


sentence was twelve months, see U.S.C. 3583(e)(3) (2006); USSG
7B1.4(b), and reasonably determined a sentence of six months
in prison with no further supervised release was appropriate.
3

Moreover, the district court correctly rejected Watkinss pro se


arguments that his arrest was illegal and he was entitled to a
probable cause hearing after he waived a preliminary hearing.
Watkins contended that only a U.S. Marshal could execute his
arrest warrant, but it was directed to [a]ny authorized law
enforcement
law.

officer

and

its

execution

See Fed. R. Crim. P. 4(c).

complied

with

federal

At his revocation hearing,

Watkins argued that he was entitled to a probable cause hearing,


but

he

waived

preliminary

hearing

under

Fed.

R.

Crim.

P.

32.1(b)(1); and he did not dispute the factual allegations in


the petition on supervised release at his revocation hearing
conducted pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.

We

therefore

affirm

the

district

courts

judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing,


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

If the client requests that a petition be

filed,

believes

but

counsel

that

such

petition

would

be

frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to


withdraw from representation.

Counsels motion must state that

a copy thereof was served on the client.


We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal

contentions

are

adequately
4

presented

in

the

materials

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

You might also like