United States v. Christopher Murdock

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 19, 2024
• Docket: 23-4459
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4459 Doc: 27 Filed: 04/19/2024 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4459

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER MALACHI MURDOCK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:14-cr-00278-CCE-2)

Submitted: April 18, 2024 Decided: April 19, 2024

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Sandra Payne Hagood, LAW OFFICE OF SANDRA PAYNE HAGOOD, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kyle David Pousson, Assistant United States Attorney, Margaret McCall Reece, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4459 Doc: 27 Filed: 04/19/2024 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Malachi Murdock appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his

supervised release and sentencing Murdock to 30 months’ imprisonment. Counsel has

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no

meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court properly

concluded that Murdock committed the first of the three supervised release violations

alleged in the revocation petition and the reasonableness of Murdock’s sentence. The

Government has declined to file a brief. Although notified of his right to file a pro se

supplemental brief, Murdock has not done so. We affirm.

To revoke supervised release, the district court need only find a violation of a

supervised release condition by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3);

United States v. Dennison, 925 F.3d 185, 191 (4th Cir. 2019). We “review[] a district

court’s decision to revoke a defendant’s supervised release for abuse of discretion,” its

underlying factual findings for clear error, and unpreserved challenges for plain error.

Dennison, 925 F.3d at 190. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court

did not abuse its discretion in finding that Murdock committed the first of the three charged

violations—the only one which Murdock contested—and revoking Murdock’s supervised

release accordingly. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 7B1.3(a)(1), p.s. (2021) (“Upon a finding of a Grade A . . . violation, the court shall

revoke probation or supervised release.”).

“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of

supervised release.” United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). “We will

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4459 Doc: 27 Filed: 04/19/2024 Pg: 3 of 4

affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly

unreasonable.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal

quotation marks omitted). “When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly

unreasonable, we must first determine whether it is unreasonable at all.” United States v.

Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010). “A revocation sentence is procedurally

reasonable if the district court adequately explains the chosen sentence after considering

the Sentencing Guidelines’ nonbinding Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Slappy, 872 F.3d at 207 (footnote omitted); see 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(e).

A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the court states a proper basis

for concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory

maximum. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 440 (4th Cir. 2006). “A court need not

be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing

a post-conviction sentence, but it still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence

imposed.” Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks omitted). Only if a

sentence is either procedurally or substantively unreasonable is a determination then made

as to whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d

652, 657 (4th Cir. 2007).

We conclude that Murdock’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable.

The district court correctly determined the applicable policy statement range, considered

the relevant statutory factors, acknowledged Murdock’s mitigation arguments, and gave

sufficiently detailed reasons for selecting its within-range sentence.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4459 Doc: 27 Filed: 04/19/2024 Pg: 4 of 4

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

revocation judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Murdock, in writing, of the

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Murdock

requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,

then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s

motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Murdock. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED