United States v. Douglas Pannell, Jr.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 22, 2023
• Docket: 22-4559
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4559 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4559

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DOUGLAS A. PANNELL, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:21-cr-00168-LCB-1)

Submitted: May 18, 2023 Decided: May 22, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Peter M. Wood, LAW OFFICE OF PETER WOOD, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Margaret M. 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4559 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/22/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Douglas A. Pannell, Jr., appeals the 12-month sentence imposed upon the revocation

of his supervised release. On appeal, Pannell asserts that his sentence is unreasonable

because the court (1) did not explain why it imposed a sentence different from the one

Pannell requested; and (2) predetermined the sentence it would impose at Pannell’s

previous supervised release revocation hearing. We affirm.

We “will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is

not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Patterson, 957 F.3d 426, 436 (4th Cir. 2020).

To determine whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we first consider

whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable, evaluating “the same

procedural and substantive considerations that guide our review of original sentences” but

taking “a more deferential appellate posture than we do when reviewing original

sentences.” United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up).

“Only if we find a revocation sentence unreasonable do we consider whether it is plainly

so.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 208 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks

omitted).

In imposing the sentence at issue here, the district court considered the relevant

statutory factors and thoroughly explained its decision to reject Pannell’s request for a

sentence of time served. In doing so, the district court explained that it had considered the

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offense and

Pannell’s history, observing that Pannell has a substantial drug problem and twice tested

positive for cocaine and marijuana but, despite his age, refuses to utilize the provided

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4559 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/22/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

addiction recovery resources. The court also acknowledged that Pannell was given an

opportunity at his last revocation hearing to address his addiction and maintain his

employment but nonetheless continued to use narcotics. On this record, we conclude that

the court addressed the “central thesis” of Pannell’s argument for a lesser sentence. See

United States v. Powers, 40 F.4th 129, 137 (4th Cir. 2022). And while the court

admonished Pannell at his previous revocation hearing that he would be afforded no more

opportunities if Pannell continued to violate the terms of his supervised release, the record

confirms that the court appropriately based the sentence here on Pannell’s arguments and

his failure to comply with his release conditions, rather than on a predetermination of a

particular sentence. See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006)

(“[D]istrict courts should focus on the defendant’s failure to follow the court-imposed

conditions of supervised release as a breach of trust when imposing revocation sentences.”

(cleaned up)).

We therefore conclude that Pannell’s sentence is not unreasonable, let alone plainly

so. Accordingly, we affirm the revocation judgment. 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