Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
No. 14-4797
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:07-cr-00176-D-4)
Submitted:
KING,
Circuit
Decided:
Judges,
and
February 8, 2016
HAMILTON,
Senior
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Ware appeals from the revocation of his supervised
release and the imposition of a prison term of 36 months.
appeal,
Ware
argues
that
his
sentence
exceeds
the
On
statutory
He
of
time
he
could
serve
upon
revocation
of
supervised
We affirm.
did not raise this claim of error below, and thus it should be
reviewed
for
plain
error.
Ware
counters
that
his
counsel,
district
maximum.
court,
objected
to
the
three-year
statutory
by
use
of
per-violation
Wares
issue
does
basis
to
calculate
the
survive
de
novo
review.
See
United States v. Under Seal, 709 F.3d 257, 261 (4th Cir. 2013)
(questions of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo).
Wares
plea
agreement,
entered
into
in
November
2007,
term
release:
of
imprisonment
years.
Ware
upon
revocation
therefore
argues
of
that
supervised
the
courts
impose
term
preponderance
of
condition
supervised
(2012).
of
the
of
imprisonment
evidence
that
release.
after
the
18
find[ing]
defendant
U.S.C.
by
violated
3583(e)(3)
prior
version
of
this
statute,
Id.
this
court
limits
the
total
prison
time
that
may
be
imposed
for
United States v.
amended
in
2003,
however,
by
the
Prosecutorial
Remedies
and
for
violations
of
supervised
release
is
not
credited
towards and so does not limit the statutory maximum that a court
may
impose
for
subsequent
violations
of
supervised
release.
United States v. Perry, 743 F.3d 238, 241-42 (7th Cir. 2014)
(collecting cases); see also United States v. Tapia-Escalera,
356 F.3d 181, 188 (1st Cir. 2004) (noting that, through the
PROTECT
Act,
Congress
has
altered
the
statute
to
adopt
the
We agree.
at
least
two
per-violation maximum.
Circuit
Court
upholding
the
United States v. Williams, 425 F.3d 987, 989 (11th Cir. 2005),
abrogated on other grounds.
The
terms of the plea agreement were clear and Ware does not contend
that he would not have entered into it had he understood that
alternative
is
argument
likewise
that
his
unavailing.
plea
agreement
Nothing
in
the
was
record
four
agreement.
years
prior
to
Ware
entering
into
the
plea
considers
waiver
knowing,
[T]he law
intelligent,
and
even
detailed
though
the
consequences
defendant
of
may
invoking
not
it.
know
the
United
States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 629 (2002). The plea agreement
constituted
the
entire
understanding
between
the
parties
and
we
conclude
that
the
district
court
properly
and
materials
legal
before
contentions
are
adequately
this
and
argument
court
presented
would
not
in
the
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED