United States of America v. Calvin Lewis, a/k/a Boo

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4460
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CALVIN LEWIS, a/k/a Boo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:03-cr-00394-DWD-14)
Submitted: November 4, 2009 Decided: November 16, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles D. Lewis, THE HICKS GROUP, LLC, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Roderick
C. Young, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Calvin Lewis appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to thirty
months of imprisonment, a sentence above the advisory guidelines
range. He asserts that the sentence was greater than necessary
to serve the purposes of sentencing and that the court failed to
explain sufficiently its chosen sentence. We affirm.
While the sentence Lewis received is above the
advisory sentencing guidelines range, it is within the
applicable statutory maximum sentence. Moreover, our review of
the record leads us to conclude that the district court
sufficiently considered the statutory factors and explained its
reasons for imposing an above-guidelines sentence. See United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). We
therefore find that the sentence imposed upon revocation of
supervised release is not plainly unreasonable. See United
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006)
(providing standard); see also United States v. Finley, 531 F.3d
288, 294 (4th Cir. 2008) (“In applying the ‘plainly
unreasonable’ standard, we first determine, using the
instructions given in Gall[ v. United States, 552 U.S. 38
(2007)], whether a sentence is ‘unreasonable.’”).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --