United States v. Rodney Wall

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: September 2, 2025
• Docket: 24-4158
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4158 Doc: 36 Filed: 09/02/2025 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4158

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RODNEY EDWARD WALL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cr-00097-CCE-1)

Submitted: August 28, 2025 Decided: September 2, 2025

Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Aaron Bader Wellman, IVEY, MCCLELLAN, SIEGMUND, BRUMBAUGH & MCDONOUGH, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Julie Carol 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 24-4158 Doc: 36 Filed: 09/02/2025 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Rodney Edward Wall appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his term of

supervised release and sentencing him to 42 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Wall’s

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 Wall’s sentence is

plainly unreasonable. Wall has filed a pro se supplemental brief in which he questions

whether the district court erred in determining that his most serious violation of supervised

release was a Grade A violation and in failing to afford him the opportunity to present his

medical records, work history, and mental and physical conditions for the court to consider

in imposing sentence. The Government declined to file a brief. We affirm.

“A district court has broad . . . discretion in fashioning a sentence upon revocation

of a defendant’s term of supervised release.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 206

(4th Cir. 2017). 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). Before deciding whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we must

first determine whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable, based

on “the same procedural and substantive considerations that guide our review of original

sentences,” but take “a more deferential appellate posture than we do when reviewing

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

modified). Even if a revocation sentence is unreasonable, we will reverse only if it is

“plainly so.” Slappy, 872 F.3d at 208 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4158 Doc: 36 Filed: 09/02/2025 Pg: 3 of 4

“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.” Id. at

207 (footnote omitted). “A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if, in light of

the totality of the circumstances, the court states an appropriate basis for concluding that

the defendant should receive the sentence imposed.” United States v. Coston, 964 F.3d

289, 297 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We find no unreasonableness, plain or otherwise, in Wall’s revocation sentence.

The district court properly calculated Wall’s advisory policy statement range at 30 to 37

months’ imprisonment based on his Category III criminal history and his Grade A violation

of supervised release resulting from his new criminal conduct that was a controlled

substance offense punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year. See U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 7B1.1(a)(1), (b), 7B1.4(a), p.s. (2023). The court heard

arguments from counsel and Wall’s extensive allocution in which he explained why he

engaged in new criminal conduct and recounted his medical history and conditions,

personal circumstances, work and educational history, and efforts in attending to his mental

health. Wall did not seek to present medical records at the revocation hearing, and we

discern no plain error in the district court’s failure to consider them. See United States v.

Aplicano-Oyuela, 792 F.3d 416, 422 (4th Cir. 2015) (noting that unpreserved sentencing

challenges are reviewed only for plain error).

Additionally, after considering counsel’s arguments and Wall’s allocution, the

advisory policy statement range, and applicable § 3553(a) factors, the district court

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4158 Doc: 36 Filed: 09/02/2025 Pg: 4 of 4

adequately explained its reasons for imposing the 42-month term. The court’s reasons are

grounded in factors appropriate for consideration in the revocation sentencing context,

namely, the nature and circumstances of Wall’s violative conduct, his history and

characteristics, and the sanctioning of his breach of trust while on release, see 18 U.S.C.

§§ 3553(a)(1), 3583(e); USSG Ch. 7, Pt. A, introductory cmt. 3(b) (“[A]t revocation the

[district] court should sanction primarily the defendant’s breach of trust.”), and the court

stated an appropriate basis for its conclusion that a 42-month prison term was warranted

here.

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

found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Wall, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme

Court of the United States for further review. If Wall requests that a petition be filed, but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court

for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Wall.

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