Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 15-4345
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:11-cr-00132-NCT-1)
Submitted:
November 4, 2015
Decided:
December 2, 2015
PER CURIAM:
In 2013, Willie Anthony Saxby pled guilty to passing and
possessing counterfeit currency, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 472
(2012),
and
the
imprisonment,
release.
The
district
to
be
court
followed
district
court
sentenced
him
3-year
term
that
while
by
found
to
36
of
months
supervised
Saxby
was
on
his
marijuana
approved
and
residence,
using
alcohol
and
in
(2)
testing
excess.
The
positive
district
for
court
supervised
release.
In
accordance
with
Anders
v.
certifying
appeal.
issues.
that
there
are
no
meritorious
grounds
for
courts
ultimate
decision
to
revoke
the
district
courts
factual
2
We review a
findings
defendants
United States v.
A district courts
Id.
are
We conclude
not
clearly
erroneous and that the court did not abuse its discretion in
revoking Saxbys supervised release.
A
district
court
has
broad
discretion
when
imposing
United States
We will affirm a
plainly
omitted).
unreasonable.
Id.
(internal
quotation
marks
followed
by
24
months
statutory
maximum.
See
supervised
18
U.S.C.
release
is
within
3559(a)(3),
the
3583(b)(2),
district
considering
court
the
statements
and
factors.
Id.
Regardless
below,
or
of
adequately
Sentencing
the
at
explains
Guidelines
applicable
546-47;
whether
the
within-Guidelines
see
the
Chapter
18
U.S.C.
18
U.S.C.
district
sentence,
sentence
court
it
after
Seven
policy
3553(a)
(2012)
3583(e)
imposes
must
an
place
(2012).
above,
on
the
325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552
3
U.S.
38,
50
(2007)).
court
need
not
be
as
detailed
or
Thompson, 595
A revocation
sentence
is
substantively
reasonable
if
the
court
states
sentence
imposed,
up
to
the
statutory
maximum.
United
Only if we
Id. at 439.
courts
rationale
is
apparent
from
the
context
sentence,
while
not
explicitly
mentioning
3553(a),
See
reasonable.
In
accordance
with
Anders,
we
have
reviewed
the
entire
We
of
the
United
States
for
further
review.
If
Saxby
Counsels
are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED