Filed: Sep. 08, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4375 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. THOMAS JAVIE KINLAW, III, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:09-cr-00076-BO-2) Submitted: December 13, 2013 Decided: September 8, 2014 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNama
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4375 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. THOMAS JAVIE KINLAW, III, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:09-cr-00076-BO-2) Submitted: December 13, 2013 Decided: September 8, 2014 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamar..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4375
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
THOMAS JAVIE KINLAW, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (7:09-cr-00076-BO-2)
Submitted: December 13, 2013 Decided: September 8, 2014
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P.
May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Javie Kinlaw, III, pled guilty to possession of
a sawed-off shotgun and aiding and abetting. In May 2010, he
was sentenced to a term of forty-two months’ imprisonment and
three years of supervised release. After his release from
imprisonment, the district court found that Kinlaw violated the
terms of his supervised release and sentenced him to the
statutory maximum of twenty-four months’ incarceration. Kinlaw
appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.
A district court has broad discretion when imposing a
sentence upon revocation of supervised release. United
States v. Thompson,
595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). We will
affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory
maximum and is not “plainly unreasonable.” United States v.
Crudup,
461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). In making this
determination, we first consider whether the sentence imposed is
procedurally or substantively unreasonable.
Id. at 438-39.
Only if we find the sentence unreasonable must we decide
“whether it is ‘plainly’ so.” United States v. Moulden,
478
F.3d 652, 657 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting
Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439).
Kinlaw argues that the district court improperly considered 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors that should not be taken into
account when determining a revocation sentence, and contends
that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We have
2
reviewed the record and Kinlaw’s arguments and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we conclude that Kinlaw’s
sentence is not plainly unreasonable. See United States v.
Webb,
738 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir. 2013).
We therefore affirm the district court’s order. 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