US v. Holden
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JON DALLAS HOLDEN, a/k/a Christopher Scott Fulton, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CR-98-47-DKC)
October 27, 2006
November 15, 2006
Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Paula Xinis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Sherri Keene, Staff Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Stuart A. Berman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: Jon Dallas Holden, a/k/a Christopher Scott Fulton, pled guilty to bank fraud, access device fraud, and structuring
transactions to evade reporting requirements.
He was sentenced to
twenty-seven months of imprisonment to be followed by five years of supervised release on the bank fraud charge and three years of supervised release on the access device and structuring charges. Upon his release from imprisonment, Holden fled to Canada. After
he was captured, he pled guilty to two grade C violations of supervised release. sentencing range was At his sentencing hearing, his advisory calculated as four to ten months of
imprisonment under the policy statements in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court sentenced Holden to the
maximum sentence of three years incarceration for the violations noting that Holden "did not even give the supervising officer an opportunity to assist him in becoming law abiding and transitioning back to society." (J.A. 104). Holden timely appeals.
We note that the district court did not have the benefit of our opinion in United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir.
2006), to guide its imposition of Holden's revocation sentence. Nonetheless, we conclude that Holden's sentence is not plainly unreasonable, and we affirm the sentence. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
- 3 -
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?