Date: 06-13-2025

Case Style:

United States of America v. Donta Montrice Olvier

Case Number: 19-CR-177

Judge: Frank D. Whitney

Court: United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Mecklenburg County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: United States District Attorney's Office in Charlote

Defendant's Attorney: Eric Foster

Description: Charlotte, North Carolina criminal defense lawyer presented the Defendant sentenced following the revocation of
his supervised release.

Donta Montrice Oliver appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of
his supervised release, claiming that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the
district court failed to explain its reasons for imposing a term of supervised release in
addition to a five-month prison term. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of
supervised release. This [c]ourt 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 consider whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, this
[c]ourt must first determine whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively
unreasonable.” Id. “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.” Id. 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); see
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (listing applicable factors). “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.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted). “A sentence within the policy statement range is presumed
reasonable.” United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation
marks omitted

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: