Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darrell Tykwan ATKINSON, a/k/a Da Da, Defendant-Appellant.
Darrell Tykwan Atkinson sold heroin while serving a term of supervised release, resulting in a 24-month sentence for distributing a controlled substance, plus a consecutive 24-month revocation sentence for violating his supervision. On appeal from his revocation judgment, Atkinson contends that the revocation sentence violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
We review double jeopardy challenges de novo. United States v. Schnittker, 807 F.3d 77, 81 (4th Cir. 2015). Nevertheless, on settled issues of law, it is well established “that one panel [of this court] cannot overrule a decision issued by another panel” unless “the [prior panel] decision rests on authority that subsequently proves untenable.” United States v. Williams, 808 F.3d 253, 261 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In United States v. Woodrup, 86 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 1996), we held that “the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit the government from criminally prosecuting and punishing an offense which has formed the basis for revocation of a term of supervised release.” Id. at 363. In urging us to depart from Woodrup, Atkinson highlights changes to the Sentencing Guidelines and statutory sentencing factors that have occurred since 1996. These changes, however, simply provide no basis for us to conclude that the reasoning in Woodrup is no longer sound. Likewise, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Haymond, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2369, 204 L.Ed.2d 897 (2019), does not undermine Woodrup. Thus, we reject Atkinson’s assertion that his revocation sentence runs afoul of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-4659
Decided: August 07, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)