Criminal Practice – Supervised Release – Procedural Reasonableness of Sentence

The district court did not procedurally err in imposing an additional 12-month term of supervised release.

We affirmed the sentence.

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed for the second revocation of his supervised release. In 2015, Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced Defendant to 92 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. In 2023, after serving his original sentence, the district court revoked Defendant’s supervised release for violations of the conditions of his supervised release. The court imposed a sentence of time-served to be followed by 24 months of supervised release. Relevant here, in 2025, Defendant’s probation officer again sought revocation of Defendant’s supervised release based on five new violations. The court revoked Defendant’s supervised release and sentenced him to 7 months’ imprisonment with 12 months of supervised release to follow.

Defendant appealed, arguing the district court procedurally erred and imposed the additional 12 months of supervised release in violation of the statutory maximum. On appeal, Defendant challenged the procedural reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that the district court improperly failed to aggregate the prior supervised release and imprisonment periods that Defendant served in calculating the maximum potential supervised release available. Defendant further contended that this error is plain. In response, the Government contended that the court did not err in calculating the available supervised release term remaining. Emphasizing precedent from sister Circuits and the plain language of the statute, the Government argued that district courts only need to aggregate the terms of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of supervised release, not the periods of supervised release served. Thus, the Government asserted that the 12 months of supervised release imposed was within the maximum available. The district court did not procedurally err in imposing an additional 12-month term of supervised release, much less plainly so.

Affirmed.

United States v. Tramartie Grade (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 001-202-25, 4 pp.) (Per Curiam) Appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte (Max O. Cogburn, Jr., J.) ON BRIEF: Chiege Ojugo Kalu Okwara, LAW OFFICE OF CHIEGE O. KALU OKWARA, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Russ Ferguson, United States Attorney, Julia K. Wood, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Unpublished