United States of America v. Floyd Ray Scales, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4465
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FLOYD RAY SCALES, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cr-00340-TDS-1)
Submitted: February 21, 2023 Decided: February 23, 2023
Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Thomas K. Maher, AMOS TYNDALL PLLC, Carrboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Angela H. Miller, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Floyd Ray Scales, Jr., appeals the one year and one day term of imprisonment
imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. On appeal, Scales argues that this
below-policy-range sentence is plainly unreasonable. He contends that the district court
incorrectly weighed the sentencing factors, giving undue weight to the seriousness of his
supervised release violations while discounting the strength of his mitigating arguments.
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, the district court considered the relevant statutory factors
and thoroughly explained its decision rejecting Scales’ request to continue on supervised
release. The court explained that it was varying downward from Scales’ 21-to-27-month
policy statement range in recognition of his mitigating arguments and the “tremendous
progress” he had made on supervision. However, the court emphasized that Scales had

-- 2 of 3 --

3
admitted to distributing drugs for more than a year while on supervision—a significant
breach of the court’s trust—and that the imposed sentence was necessary to afford adequate
deterrence and protect the public.
We conclude that Scales’ 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

-- 3 of 3 --