US v. Watkins, No. 07-4380 (4th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4380 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDWARD LEE WATKINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:05-cr-00258-D) Submitted: November 6, 2007 Decided: November 21, 2007 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Edward revocation of Lee his Watkins appeals twenty-four month prison term. district release supervised the and court s imposition of a On appeal, Watkins contends his revocation sentence was plainly unreasonable because it exceeded his policy statement range of four to ten months. This court will affirm a sentence We affirm. imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed statutory range and not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1813 (2007). In making this determination, considers whether the sentence is unreasonable. initial inquiry takes a more deferential the court first Id. at 438. appellate This posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than reasonableness review for guidelines sentences. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007)(citations omitted). While the district court must consider the policy statements contained in Chapter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines as helpful assistance, and the statutory requirements and factors applicable to revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583, the court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke the previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-39. The court must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed, as with - 2 - the typical sentencing procedure, but this statement need not be as specific as has been required for departing from a traditional guidelines range. Moulden, 478 F.3d at 657. Only if this modified reasonableness analysis leads us to conclude that the sentence was unreasonable, do we ask whether it is plainly so. Id. Watkins began serving his term of supervised release on July 27, 2005. On October 6, 2005, his term of supervised release was modified to include halfway house placement and mental health treatment because Watkins had been charged with second degree trespass. use. On August 4, 2006, Watkins tested positive for cocaine On March 19, 2007, a probation officer filed a second amended motion for revocation of Watkins supervised release, citing six violations, including three that occurred after Watkins was released from custody pending his revocation hearing.* Watkins admitted the violations and asked the court to consider a six-month halfway house placement. The district court acknowledged that Watkins policy statement range was four to ten months, but concluded that a sentence of twenty-four months, the * The probation officer alleged: (1) Watkins used a controlled substance on February 12, 2007; (2) Watkins failed to participate as directed in a substance abuse treatment program by failing to attend counseling sessions on ten occasions between October 2006 and February 2007; (3) Watkins failed to perform community service and had only completed 28.45 of the 200 hours ordered; (4) Watkins used cocaine on March 15, 2007; (5) Watkins consumed alcohol on March 14, 2007; and (6) Watkins failed to follow the probation officer s instructions not to leave the probation office after testing positive for cocaine use on March 15. - 3 - statutory maximum, was appropriate. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4; 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a)(2)(2000). Watkins contends the increase in his sentence above the policy statement range was plainly unreasonable. We disagree. The district court considered the policy range under Chapter Seven, but sentenced Watkins to the statutory maximum based on his need for mental health and substance abuse treatment and on his pattern of repeated violations. It was reasonable for the court to take into account not only the severity of Watkins most severe violation, but also the number of violations. See Moulden, 478 F.3d at 658. We therefore affirm Watkins sentence. oral argument because the facts and legal We dispense with contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 4 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
