US v. Brian Turner, No. 08-4707 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4707 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRIAN LAMONT TURNER, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (3:07-cr-00013-nkm-1) Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: November 10, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Frederick T. Heblich, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine Spurell, Research and Writing Attorney, for Appellant. Julia C. Dudley, Acting United States Attorney, Ronald M. Huber, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Brian Lamont Turner appeals the district court s judgment after sentencing him for violating the terms of his supervised release. Turner argues that the twelve-month sentence was plainly unreasonable given that he had a job and entered a drug treatment program. Finding no error, we affirm. We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised maximum release and is not if it is plainly within the applicable unreasonable. United Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). explained that reasonableness, substantive it must first follow[ing] considerations assess generally that we the the employ in statutory States v. This court sentence for procedural and our review of original sentences, . . . with some necessary modifications to take into revocation account the sentences. unique nature Id. at of 438-39 supervised (internal release citation omitted); see United States v. Finley, 531 F.3d 288, 294 (4th Cir. 2008) ( In applying the plainly unreasonable standard, we first determine, using the instructions given in Gall [v. United States, 128 S. Ct. unreasonable. ). 586, 597 (2007)], whether sentence is If this court concludes that a sentence is reasonable, it should affirm the sentence. 439. a Crudup, 461 F.3d at Only if a sentence is found procedurally or substantively unreasonable will this court decide whether the sentence is 2 plainly unreasonable. Id.; see Finley, 531 F.3d at 294. Although the district court must consider the Chapter 7 policy statements and the requirements of 18 U.S.C.A. ยงยง 3553(a), 3583 (West 2000 & Supp. 2008), the [district] court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke its previous sentence and impose a Crudup, 461 term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. F.3d at 439 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We respect to reasonable. find the no procedural sentence and or further substantive find with sentence the error was Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
