United States v. James Nichols , 589 F. App'x 163 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4488
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES MICHAEL NICHOLS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (2:07-cr-00192-1)
Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: January 7, 2015
Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christian M. Capece, KAY CASTO & CHANEY PLLC, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States
Attorney, Monica D. Coleman, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Michael Nichols appeals from the twelve-month
sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. He
argues that his sentence is unreasonable. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of
supervised release if it is within the prescribed statutory
range and not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup,
461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). At Nichols’ revocation
hearing, the district court correctly determined that Nichols’
advisory sentencing range was 8-14 months. See U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4(a), p.s. (2013). Nichols argues that
the district court erroneously considered the seriousness of one
of his supervised release violations in contravention of 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012). See id. (noting that some 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2012) factors are not to be considered for supervised
release sentence). Our review of the hearing reveals the one-
year term of imprisonment and two years of supervised release
thereafter (with numerous special conditions regarding treating
and preventing Nichols’ alcoholism) were based on the court’s
concern that Nichols’ continued drinking was going to kill
someone. This view was supported by Nichols’ eight prior
driving under the influence convictions and his violence toward
family members while intoxicated.
2
Under these circumstances, we find that the district
court adequately explained the selected sentence which was
within the recommended sentencing range and based on permitted
considerations. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547
(4th Cir. 2010). Thus, we do not find that Nichols’ sentence
was plainly unreasonable. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 437; see also
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-55 (2007) (upholding
presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence for
non-revocation sentence). We therefore affirm. 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
3