United States of America v. James Poore, a/k/a Danny

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-4395
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES POORE, a/k/a Danny,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Abingdon. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00010-JPJ-PMS-24)
Submitted: April 22, 2022 Decided: May 16, 2022
Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEFS: Juval O. Scott, Federal Public Defender, Charlottesville, Virginia, Nancy C.
Dickenson-Vicars, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL
PUBLIC DEFENDER, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. Christopher R. Kavanaugh,
United States Attorney, Kari K. Munro, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
James Poore appeals the 12-month upward variant sentence imposed by the district
court upon revocation of his supervised release. On appeal, Poore argues that the court
failed to adequately respond to defense counsel’s arguments regarding an available
inpatient substance abuse treatment program and to sufficiently explain the extent of the
upward variance imposed. We affirm.
“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of
supervised release. [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 . . . determine whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively
unreasonable,” id., 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) (alteration and 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—that is, whether the unreasonableness is
clear or obvious.” Patterson, 957 F.3d at 437 (internal quotation marks omitted).
“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.” United
States v. Coston, 964 F.3d 289, 297 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted),

-- 2 of 4 --

3
cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1252 (2021); see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (listing applicable factors).
“[A]lthough the court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation
sentence as it must be when imposing a post-conviction sentence, it still must provide a
statement of reasons for the sentence imposed.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202,
208 (4th Cir. 2017) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the
court “must address the parties’ nonfrivolous arguments in favor of a particular sentence,
and if the court rejects those arguments, it must explain why in a detailed-enough manner
that [we] can meaningfully consider the procedural reasonableness of the revocation
sentence.” Id. An explanation is sufficient if we can determine “that the sentencing court
considered the applicable sentencing factors with regard to the particular defendant before
it and also considered any potentially meritorious arguments raised by the parties with
regard to sentencing.” United States v. Gibbs, 897 F.3d 199, 204 (4th Cir. 2018)
(alterations and internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that Poore’s revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable, as the
district court provided a detailed explanation for the upward variance that reflected a clear
consideration of defense counsel’s arguments. The district court weighed the appropriate
factors when it considered Poore’s history and characteristics, his repeated breach of the
court’s trust, and the need for adequate deterrence both to Poore and other violators of
supervised release. Specifically, although the court credited Poore’s testimony that he was
a hard worker and had reduced his methamphetamine use when he received counseling,
the court balanced these factors against Poore’s repeated and numerous violations of
supervised release. The court also noted that Poore had failed to take advantage of prior

-- 3 of 4 --

4
rehabilitation opportunities and that it remained skeptical of Poore’s true motivations for
seeking treatment at this time. The court stressed the need to deter both Poore and others
on supervision from continued drug use. As for Poore’s arguments regarding the inpatient
drug treatment program, our review of the record reveals that the district court adequately
considered these arguments and appropriately weighed them against other relevant factors
before rejecting them and imposing a term of imprisonment.
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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --