United States v. Markus McCormick
670 F. App'x 85
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Markus Odon McCormick had his supervised release revoked and was sentenced to 50 months’ imprisonment by the district court.
- McCormick appealed, arguing the 50-month revocation sentence was greater than necessary under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
- The Fourth Circuit reviews revocation sentences for plain unreasonableness and applies a more deferential standard than for original sentences.
- Procedural reasonableness requires consideration of Chapter Seven advisory policy range and permitted § 3553(a) factors; substantive reasonableness requires a proper basis for the sentence up to the statutory maximum.
- The district court addressed McCormick’s allocution and counsel’s mitigation arguments and explained reasons for imposing an above-policy 50‑month term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 50‑month revocation sentence is greater than necessary under § 3553(a) | McCormick: sentence is greater than necessary and thus substantively unreasonable | Government/District Court: sentence is within discretion and justified by § 3553(a) factors and revocation circumstances | Court affirmed: sentence not plainly unreasonable; deferential review upholds 50 months |
| Whether district court procedurally erred in explaining sentence | McCormick: court failed to address mitigation and adequately explain why 50 months was sufficient | District Court: provided order and hearing comments showing consideration of allocution and counsel’s arguments | Court rejected procedural challenge; explanation and record adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 2015) (deferential review standard for revocation sentences)
- United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir. 2006) (standards for procedural and substantive reasonableness on revocation)
- United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2010) (review framework for assessing whether a revocation sentence is unreasonable)
- United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652 (4th Cir. 2007) (definition of "plainly unreasonable")
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (deference to district court’s § 3553(a) determinations)
- United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669 (4th Cir. 2011) (district court discretion in weighting § 3553(a) factors)