Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 14-4497
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00303-NCT-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Montoyua
Waller
appeals
the
district
courts
judgment
whether
Waller
committed
had
the
a
district
court
Grade
violation
properly
pro
counsel.
se
supplemental
reiterating
and
that
whether
his
raised
by
supplemental
plainly
brief
found
briefs
addressing
unreasonable
because
whether
the
Wallers
district
sentence
court
failed
was
to
courts
ultimate
decision
to
revoke
We review a
a
defendants
underlying
revocation
for
clear
error.
United
Credibility
856,
858
(8th
Cir.
(Witness
credibility
is
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted)).
Because
the
of
new
criminal
conduct,
even
if
the
defendant
is
the
charges
against
him
are
dropped.
United
States
v.
questions
whether
the
district
court
properly
felony
second
degree
kidnapping
and
felony
extortion.
Counsel argues that the court failed to give any weight to the
fact that Waller himself called the police during the offense,
and failed to consider how this bolstered Wallers credibility.
Additionally, counsel argues that the district court erred in
denying Wallers request that the government take more exemplars
of
the
victims
reopened
the
handwriting,
evidentiary
and
portion
that
of
the
the
court
should
hearing.
have
Counsel
the
supervised
release
violation
3
was
based
were
later
dismissed
or
acquitted,
the
finding
of
supervised
release
We find no clear
evidence.
Accordingly,
the
claims
lack
merit,
and
if
it
is
within
plainly unreasonable.
When
reviewing
the
statutory
maximum
and
is
not
whether
revocation
sentence
is
plainly
revocation
district
considering
court
the
Id. at 548.
sentence
adequately
Sentencing
is
procedurally
explains
Guidelines
4
the
reasonable
sentence
Chapter
Seven
if
the
after
policy
statements
and
the
applicable
18
U.S.C.
3553(a)
(2012)
factors.
546-47.
record
particular
Carter,
an
individualized
facts
564
of
F.3d
the
325,
case
330
assessment
before
(4th
Cir.
it.
2009)
based
United
on
States
(quoting
Gall
the
v.
v.
the
policy
circumstances
statement
of
the
range
offense,
was
appropriate
specifically
due
the
to
the
victims
ex-wifes
and
car.
mentored
Waller
the
pointed
victim,
that
out
he
that
himself
he
had
called
police multiple times as the offense was taking place, and that
he needed to stay out of prison in order to support his family.
Waller asserted that it was the victims idea to attempt to
extort money from his girlfriend to pay for the damage to the
car and the lost keys.
sentences
within
the
policy
statement
Even for
range,
district court may not simply impose sentence without giving any
indication of its reasons for doing so.
court
asked
questions
and
made
Id. at 547.
comments
at
the
While the
sentencing
hearing and was clearly very engaged, the court was cut off by
Waller after pronouncing the sentence, and thereafter did not
provide any explanation of its chosen sentence.
Accordingly, being mindful that a sufficient explanation is
necessary
to
allow
for
meaningful
appellate
review
and
to
We
the entire record and have found no other meritorious issues for
review.
courts
This
court
requires
that
counsel
inform
petition
be
filed,
but
6
counsel
If Waller requests
believes
that
such
We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this
court
and
AFFIRMED IN PART;
VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED