# United States v. Scott Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · November 2, 2012 · 486 F. App'x 378

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/811201

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Scott BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 2, 2012
- **Citations:** 486 F. App'x 378
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Niemeyer, Diaz, Thacker
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/811201

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4280

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SCOTT BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (4:11-cr-00127-FL-1)

Submitted: October 5, 2012 Decided: November 2, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Scott Brown appeals the district court’s judgment

revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twenty

months of imprisonment. On appeal, Brown alleges his twenty-

month sentence was plainly unreasonable. For the reasons that

follow, we affirm.

Three days into his supervised release, Brown was

charged with statutory rape in North Carolina. Thereafter, he

was convicted of state charges for indecent liberties with a

minor. Brown was evaluated by a licensed sex offender

therapist, who recommended that he participate in a sex offender

treatment program for a period of six months. Brown’s probation

officer directed him to do so as part of his modified terms of

release. Brown, however, failed to attend the sessions as

required, in violation of his terms of supervised release.

Thus, Brown’s probation officer filed a motion for revocation of

his supervised release for this violation and for two other

violations (failure to visit the probation office and failure to

submit truthful and complete reports for three months in a row).

At his revocation hearing, Brown admitted the

violations and the district court sentenced him to twenty months

of imprisonment, departing above his advisory Sentencing

Guidelines range of 8-14 months of imprisonment. The court

imposed sentence after hearing from both parties and Brown

2
himself, and specifically considering Chapter 7 of the

Sentencing Guidelines and relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)

factors. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2011)

(listing § 3553(a) factors that may be considered for revocation

of supervised release). We find that the district court

adequately explained its reasons for imposing the sentence,

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009), and

that the sentence was not otherwise plainly unreasonable.

United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2010)

(providing review standard).

Accordingly, we affirm. 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

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/811201. Public record. Not legal advice.