Unpublished

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4181
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JIMMY KEITH RUSSELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:07-cr-01182-TLW-1)
Submitted:
July 24, 2012
Decided:
August 10, 2012
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Meetze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence,

South Carolina, for Appellant.
William E. Day, II, Assistant
United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Keith Russell was sentenced to forty-two months
of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release,
following his guilty plea to bank robbery, in violation of 18
U.S.C. 2113(a) (2006), and Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of
18 U.S.C. 1951(a) (2006).
His term of supervised release
began in March 2011.

In late October 2011, the probation officer filed a
Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision
in the district court, alleging that Russell had violated two
conditions
of
his
supervised
release:
(1)
he
had
engaged
in
illegal drug use; and (2) he had failed to pay the special
assessment fee and restitution.
In describing Russells illegal
drug use, the probation officer alleged that Russell had failed
two drug tests, testing positive for marijuana and cocaine on
July 19, 2011, and testing positive for cocaine on October 3,
2011.
2012,
After Russell failed another drug test on January 13,

testing
submitted
positive
Petition
for
for
cocaine,
Action
on
the
probation
Conditions
of
officer
Pretrial
Release, arguing that Russell had violated the conditions of his

pretrial release and requesting that a warrant be issued for his
arrest.
At
his
revocation
hearing,
Russell
admitted
to
the
violations, and also admitted that he failed the additional drug

2
test on January 13, 2012.
His Grade C violations combined with
his level I criminal history category produced a recommended

imprisonment range of three to nine months.
Guidelines Manual, 7B1.4, p.s. (2011).
U.S. Sentencing
The district court
sentenced Russell to six months of imprisonment, followed by two

years of supervised release.
Counsel
has
filed
brief
pursuant
to
Anders
v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no

meritorious
however,
grounds
to
for
consider
appeal.
whether
Counsel
the
plainly unreasonable sentence.
asks
district
the
court
court,
imposed
In response, Russell has filed a
pro se supplemental brief, raising several issues related to his

revocation hearing.
In
supervised
posture
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
reviewing
release,
we
concerning
discretion
than
sentences.
sentence
take[]
issues
imposed
of
more
fact
reasonableness
United
States v.
upon
revocation
deferential
and
the
review
Moulden,
for
478
of
appellate
exercise
of
[G]uidelines
F.3d
652,
656
(4th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433,
439 (4th Cir. 2006)).
revocation
of
unreasonable.
Cir.
2010).
We will affirm a sentence imposed after
supervised
release
if
it
is
not
plainly
United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th

The
first
step
in
this
review
requires
determination of whether the sentence is unreasonable.

3
Crudup,
461
F.3d
at
438.
substantively
Only
if
unreasonable
the
does
sentence
the
is
procedurally
inquiry
proceed
to
or
the
second step of the analysis to determine whether the sentence is

plainly unreasonable.
A
supervised
procedurally
Chapter
Id. at 438-39.
reasonable
Sevens
release
if
advisory
the
revocation
district
policy
sentence
court
statement
has
range
is
considered
and
the
18
U.S.C.A. 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2011) factors applicable

to supervised release revocation.
See 18 U.S.C.A. 3583(e)
(West 2000 & Supp. 2011); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-40.
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
sentence
must
provide
imposed.
quotation
marks
reasonable
if
the
statement
Thompson,
omitted).
district
595
A
court
of
F.3d
reasons
at
547
sentence
is
stated
proper
for
the
(internal
substantively
basis
for
concluding the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up

to the statutory maximum.
Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.
Our review of the record reveals that the district

court correctly calculated and considered the advisory policy
statement range and properly considered the relevant 3553(a)
factors.
the
Because the district court stated a proper basis for
sentence
Guidelines
and
imposed,
below
which
the
was
statutory
4
within
the
maximum,
Chapter
see
18
Seven
U.S.C.A.
3583(e)(3) (West Supp. 2011), we conclude that the sentence

was both procedurally and substantively reasonable.
Addressing the arguments raised in Russells pro se
supplemental
erroneously
brief,
he
sentenced
supervised release.
first
him
claims
based
on
that
the
uncharged
district
court
violations
of
To the extent that Russell is alleging a
violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2) (stating that defendant

is
entitled
to
full
revocation
hearing,
including
written
notice of the alleged violation), we review for plain error as

he failed to object below.
725, 732 (1993).
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.
We conclude that Russell cannot establish that
plain error occurred.
Russells advisory policy statement range
remained three to nine months based on the classification of his

violations as Grade C and his criminal history category of I,
regardless of whether the district court considered two or three *
drug test violations.
Accordingly, we find that the alleged
error did not affect Russells substantial rights or seriously

affect[]
the
fairness,
judicial proceedings.
integrity
or
public
reputation
of
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Finally, contrary to Russells arguments on appeal, we find that

the district court recognized its discretionary authority under
The record reveals the district court did not consider

Russells failed drug test of January 31, 2012.
18 U.S.C.A. 3583(d) (West Supp. 2011) to place Russell in a

substance abuse program as an alternative to incarceration.
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

expressed in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

Unpublished

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unpublished

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unpublished

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

July 24, 2012

August 10, 2012

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael A. Meetze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

His term of supervised release

began in March 2011.

In describing Russells illegal

After Russell failed another drug test on January 13,

Release, arguing that Russell had violated the conditions of his

violations, and also admitted that he failed the additional drug

test on January 13, 2012.

His Grade C violations combined with

his level I criminal history category produced a recommended

The district court

sentenced Russell to six months of imprisonment, followed by two

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no

plainly unreasonable sentence.

In response, Russell has filed a

pro se supplemental brief, raising several issues related to his

Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

We will affirm a sentence imposed after

United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th

determination of whether the sentence is unreasonable.

second step of the analysis to determine whether the sentence is

U.S.C.A. 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2011) factors applicable

See 18 U.S.C.A. 3583(e)

(West 2000 & Supp. 2011); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-40.

need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation

concluding the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.

Our review of the record reveals that the district

Because the district court stated a proper basis for

3583(e)(3) (West Supp. 2011), we conclude that the sentence

To the extent that Russell is alleging a

violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2) (stating that defendant

notice of the alleged violation), we review for plain error as

United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.

We conclude that Russell cannot establish that

plain error occurred.

Russells advisory policy statement range

remained three to nine months based on the classification of his

Accordingly, we find that the alleged

error did not affect Russells substantial rights or seriously

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Finally, contrary to Russells arguments on appeal, we find that

The record reveals the district court did not consider

18 U.S.C.A. 3583(d) (West Supp. 2011) to place Russell in a

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

If the client requests that a petition be

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

Counsels motion must state that

a copy thereof was served on the client.

We dispense with oral