US v. Roman
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus VINCENTE ROMAN, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:05-cr-174-1)
Submitted: September 26, 2006
Decided: September 28, 2006
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Devon L. Donahue, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: Vincente imprisonment Roman appeals the his eighteen-month court term of his
He argues that the sentence is unreasonable
because it was higher than the applicable advisory sentencing range of six to twelve months pursuant to policy statements in Chapter 7 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual. Pursuant to United
States v. Crudup, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2006 WL 2243586, at *3 (4th Cir. Aug. 7, 2006), revocation sentences are reviewed to determine whether they are "plainly unreasonable" with regard to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors applicable to these sentences. We find
that Roman's sentence is not plainly unreasonable, because the district court sufficiently stated a proper basis for its
conclusion that Roman should be sentenced to a lengthier sentence than one within the advisory range. sentence. We therefore affirm Roman's
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.
- 2 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?