United States of America v. Thomas Carver Stephens

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4163
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
THOMAS CARVER STEPHENS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-4164
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
THOMAS CARVER STEPHENS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington and Raleigh. James C.
Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:98-cr-00049-F-1; 5:98-cr-00083-
F-1)
Submitted: October 7, 2013 Decided: October 9, 2013
Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P.
May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In 1998, Thomas Carver Stephens pleaded guilty in two
separate cases to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2113(a) (2006), and possession of a firearm by a felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). The district court
sentenced Stephens to 168 months of imprisonment for the bank
robbery conviction and a concurrent 120 months of imprisonment
for the firearm conviction, followed by three years of
supervised release. After his release from incarceration, the
district court found that Stephens had violated the terms of his
supervised release. The court revoked Stephens’ supervised
release and sentenced him to twenty-four months of imprisonment
on each conviction, to be served concurrently. Stephens
appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.
Stephens argues that the revocation sentence is
plainly unreasonable as the district court failed to properly
consider his need for substance abuse treatment in sentencing
him above the advisory Guidelines range. We review a sentence
imposed on revocation to determine whether the sentence was
plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433,
437 (4th Cir. 2006). Although a district court must consider
the policy statements in Chapter Seven of the United States
Sentencing Guidelines along with the statutory requirements of
18 U.S.C. § 3583 (2006) and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), “the

-- 3 of 4 --

4
court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke its previous
sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory
maximum.” Id. at 439 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). We have reviewed the record and the relevant legal
authorities and conclude that the sentence is reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --