US v. Anthony Wright, No. 11-4479 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4479 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY SHENEER WRIGHT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:00-cr-00140-F-1) Submitted: November 10, 2011 Decided: December 8, 2011 Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and DIAZ, 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Anthony Shaneer Wright appeals the sixty-month sentence imposed after the district court revoked his supervised release. On appeal, Wright asserts that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately explain its reasons for imposing a sentence above the thirty-seven to forty-six month Guidelines range. Finding no error, we affirm. This court reviews a sentence imposed upon revocation of a defendant s supervised release to determine whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). Reasonableness review has both procedural and substantive components. determining whether a revocation Id. at 438-39. sentence is In plainly unreasonable, we must first determine whether the sentence is procedurally unreasonable. 1 Id. at 438. Although a sentencing court must consider the Chapter Seven policy statements and the relevant 18 U.S.C.A. ยง 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2011) factors in fashioning its sentence, the sentencing court retains broad discretion to revoke a defendant s supervised release and impose a term of imprisonment 1 Because Wright does not contend that his sentence is substantively unreasonable, we need not address that second component of the reasonableness inquiry. 2 Id. at 439. up to the statutory maximum. Moreover, a court s statement of its reasons for going beyond non-binding policy statements in imposing a sentence after revoking a defendant s supervised release term need not be as specific as has been required when courts departed from [pre-Booker 2 guidelines at sentencing for criminal offenses. quotation marks omitted). that the sentence is mandatory] Id. (internal Only if the defendant demonstrates unreasonable will this whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. 3 court consider Id. With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude that the district court adequately explained its reasons within-Guidelines for sentencing Wright for a statutory maximum sentence of sixty months imprisonment. We persuaded unreasonable, let that alone the for argument the not and Wright s to are sentence rejecting sixty-month plainly sentence unreasonable. affirm the district court s judgment. imposed We was therefore We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). 3 Contrary to the Government s argument, Wright preserved this claim by requesting a sentence lower than the one ultimately imposed. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578-79 (4th Cir. 2010). 3 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.
