Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
No. 10-4240
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:97-cr-00135-F-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
James
Strickland
appeals
from
the
sixty-month
Strickland
unreasonable
because
committed
Grade
reduction
to
his
contends
the
A
court
sentence
erred
violation
original
the
and
sentence
in
in
was
determining
considering
based
on
the
release
sentence
should
statutory
be
maximum
imposed
after
affirmed
and
is
if
it
not
revocation
is
plainly
within
he
a
prior
We affirm.
of
supervised
the
applicable
unreasonable.
United
this
determination,
sentence is unreasonable.
we
first
Id. at 438.
had
retroactive
plainly
consider
whether
In
the
the
procedural
substantive
considerations
that
some
unique
necessary
nature
of
modifications
supervised
to
release
take
into
revocation
account
the
sentences.
sentence
procedurally
Chapter
imposed
reasonable
Seven
policy
if
upon
the
revocation
district
statements
and
the
of
court
18
3583(e)
(2006);
Crudup,
461
F.3d
at
is
considered
U.S.C.
release
the
3553(a)
See 18 U.S.C.
438-40.
sentence
sentence
sentence
is
is
not
found
unreasonable.
procedurally
Id.
or
We will affirm if
at
439.
substantively
Only
if
unreasonable
argues
that
the
district
court
erred
in
concluding that his most serious new law violation was a Grade A
violation rather than a Grade B violation.
A Grade A violation
. . .
7B1.1(a)(1),
purposes
of
is
p.s..
controlled
A
7B1.1(a)(1),
substance
controlled
p.s.,
offense.
substance
includes
state
USSG
offense
or
for
federal
year in prison.
The commentary to
depend
charges
on
of
the
which
proceeding.
conduct
the
that
is
the
subject
defendant
is
convicted
of
criminal
criminal
in
(n.1); see United States v. Jolibois, 294 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th
Cir.
2002)
(violation
of
terms
of
supervised
release
is
was
ever
although
convicted
a
of
any
conviction
particular
requires
offense).
proof
beyond
by
preponderance
of
the
evidence.
See
18
U.S.C.
3583(e)(3).
Strickland
contends
that
his
supervised
release
the
court
erred
in
finding
by
preponderance
of
the
evidence that the drugs were intended for distribution and not
personal
use.
The
court
did
not
err
in
determining
that
its
discretion
sentence,
and
in
considering
Strickland
has
its
not
prior
shown
reduction
that
the
of
his
sixty-month
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
and
materials
We dispense with
legal
before
contentions
the
court
are
and