UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Daniel Ernest MCGINNIS, Defendant - Appellant.
Decided: September 30, 2019
Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Juval O. Scott, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Randy V. Cargill, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas T. Cullen, United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, Jean B. Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Daniel Ernest McGinnis appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 11 months’ imprisonment. McGinnis challenges the reasonableness of his sentence, contending that the district court did not consider his evidence of good behavior while awaiting his revocation hearing and in failing to impose his sentence concurrent to a state sentence. We affirm.
“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). We “will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not ‘plainly unreasonable.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006)). “When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we must first determine whether it is unreasonable at all.” United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010). A sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court states a proper basis for concluding the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. A sentence within the applicable policy statement range under Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines is presumed reasonable. United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015). Applying these standards, we readily conclude that McGinnis’s within-range, 11-month sentence is neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. The court recognized that it had the authority to run the sentence concurrently to a state sentence, considered McGinnis’s argument, and found that it was not appropriate.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
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.