United States v. Ladarrius Walker

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: September 23, 2025
• Docket: 24-4110
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4110 Doc: 28 Filed: 09/23/2025 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4110

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LADARRIUS O’BRIAN WALKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:16-cr-00239-TDS-1)

Submitted: September 9, 2025 Decided: September 23, 2025

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Seth A. Neyhart, LAW OFFICE OF SETH A. NEYHART, Durham , North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Julie C. Niemeier, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 24-4110 Doc: 28 Filed: 09/23/2025 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Ladarrius O’Brian Walker appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his

supervised release and imposing a sentence of 18 months in prison followed by 18 months

of supervised release. On appeal, Walker contends the district court erred in finding that

he violated his supervised release conditions by committing the offense of assault on a

female, and his upward variant revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable. We affirm.

“We review a district court’s factual findings underlying a revocation of supervised

release for clear error and its ultimate decision to revoke a defendant’s supervised release

for abuse of discretion.” United States v. George, 95 F.4th 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2024)

(citation modified). “A district court may revoke supervised release if it finds by a

preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised

release.” United States v. Patterson, 957 F.3d 426, 435 (4th Cir. 2020) (citation modified).

“This burden simply requires the trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact

is more probable than its nonexistence.” Id. (citation modified). “A district court’s

credibility determinations at a revocation hearing are entitled to a great deal of deference

by the reviewing court.” Id. “Under clear-error review, our task is to determine whether

the district court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its

entirety.” Id. (citation modified).

“A sentencing court has broad discretion to impose a revocation sentence up to the

statutory maximum.” United States v. Coston, 964 F.3d 289, 296 (4th Cir. 2020) (citation

modified). “This Court will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory

maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Campbell, 102 F.4th 238,

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4110 Doc: 28 Filed: 09/23/2025 Pg: 3 of 4

239-40 (4th Cir. 2024) (citation modified). “First, we determine whether the sentence was

procedurally or substantively unreasonable, taking a more deferential appellate posture

than we do when reviewing original sentences.” United States v. Rios, 55 F.4th 969, 973

(4th Cir. 2022) (citation modified).

“A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court adequately

explains the chosen sentence after considering the Chapter Seven policy statement range

and the applicable [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) sentencing factors.” Patterson, 957 F.3d at 436.

“A sentence is substantively reasonable if the totality of the circumstances indicates that

the court had a proper basis for its conclusion that the defendant should receive the sentence

imposed.” United States v. Amin, 85 F.4th 727, 740 (4th Cir. 2023) (citation modified).

“Only if a sentence is either procedurally or substantively unreasonable is a

determination then made as to whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable—that is,

whether the unreasonableness is clear or obvious.” Patterson, 957 F.3d at 437 (citation

modified). “And even if a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we will still affirm

it if we find that any errors are harmless.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th

Cir. 2017).

Walker first contends the district court clearly erred in finding that he committed

the offense of assault on a female. We have reviewed the record and Walker’s arguments

on appeal, and we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in its finding. Walker

argues that the circumstances of his case could be explained in a way that is consistent with

his denial that he committed the assault. We conclude, however, that the district court’s

account of the evidence was plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4110 Doc: 28 Filed: 09/23/2025 Pg: 4 of 4

Walker also contends that his revocation sentence of 18 months in prison, which

was four months above his policy statement range, is plainly unreasonable. Specifically,

he contends that the sentencing factors cited by the district court in support of its variance

would have been satisfied by a sentence within the policy statement range. We conclude,

however, that Walker’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district

court adequately explained its chosen sentence after considering the policy statement range

and applicable sentencing factors; and the totality of the circumstances indicates that the

court had a proper basis for its conclusion that Walker should receive the sentence.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s revocation judgment. 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