Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
No. 15-4553
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:11-cr-02354-HMH-1)
Submitted:
GREGORY,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
HAMILTON,
Benjamin
T.
Stepp,
Assistant
Federal
Public
Defender,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Maxwell B. Cauthen,
III,
Assistant
United States
Attorney,
Greenville,
South
Carolina, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel
Dondrekus
Johnson
appeals
the
district
courts
meritorious
grounds
for
appeal
but
raising
the
issue
of
whether
the
district
court
erred
in
finding
that
he
We affirm.
and
imposing
term
of
imprisonment
for
abuse
of
discretion.
Cir. 1992).
underlying
revocation
for
clear
error.
United
States
v.
Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct.
494 (2015).
This standard
fact
is
more
probable
than
its
nonexistence.
United
States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 631 (4th Cir. 2010) (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted).
We will not disturb a district courts revocation sentence
unless it falls outside the statutory maximum or is otherwise
plainly
unreasonable.
omitted).
a
term
Padgett,
788
F.3d
at
373
(citation
of
imprisonment
up
to
the
statutory
maximum.
Id.
In
informed
by
the
same
procedural
and
substantive
Id. (citations
is
well
established
that
defendant
may
raise
[a]
must
raise
[his]
claim
in
the
Otherwise,
district
court
by
Id.
sentence is reasonable, and the district court did not abuse its
discretion in revoking his supervised release and sentencing him
to the statutory maximum.
not
conclusively
show
ineffective
assistance,
and
Johnsons
affirm
the
district
courts
judgment.
This
We
court
for
further
review.
If
the
client
requests
that
We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
the
court
and