United States v. Carl Waites, III
672 F. App'x 258
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Carl Waites III admitted violating conditions of his supervised release and did not object at the revocation hearing.
- The district court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 10 months’ imprisonment followed by 26 months’ supervised release.
- Counsel filed an Anders brief asserting there are no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal; Waites was notified of his right to file a pro se brief but did not.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion (revocation) and clear error (factual findings) and examined procedural and substantive reasonableness of the revocation sentence.
- The district court considered Chapter Seven policy statements and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, gave Waites an opportunity to allocute, and explained the sentence based on multiple violations shortly after supervision began.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding no procedural or substantive unreasonableness and no meritorious appellate issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revocation was proper | Waites admitted violations; no objection to hearing | Government sought revocation based on admitted violations | Revocation upheld — no error in revocation decision |
| Whether Rule 32.1 was followed | Waites did not contest procedure | District court complied with Rule 32.1 requirements | Court found compliance with Rule 32.1 |
| Procedural reasonableness of sentence | Sentence within policy range; court considered guidelines and §3553(a) | No procedural defect alleged | Procedurally reasonable; court considered policy statements and factors |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Court tailored explanation to Waites’ repeated violations soon after supervised release began | No substantive-unreasonableness showing | Substantively reasonable; sentence upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures when counsel asserts appeal is frivolous)
- United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for supervised-release revocation)
- United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638 (4th Cir. 2013) (revocation sentences reviewed for plain unreasonableness if within statutory maximum)
- United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir. 2006) (procedural and substantive reasonableness framework for revocation sentences)
- United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2010) (explanation required for revocation sentence need not be as detailed as for original sentence)