US v. Marqueis Longus

Filing 920081124


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4534 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARQUEIS D. LONGUS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:04-cr-00254-REP-1) Submitted: October 20, 2008 Decided: November 24, 2008 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Paul G. Gill, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marqueis D. Longus appeals the district court's judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a sentence of twenty-four months' imprisonment. sentence is plainly unreasonable. affirm. We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is not plainly unreasonable. States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). United The Longus alleges that his For the following reasons, we sentence first must be assessed for reasonableness, "follow[ing] generally the procedural and substantive considerations that we employ in our review of original sentences[,] . . . with some necessary modifications to take into account the unique nature of supervised release revocation sentences." Id. at 438-39; see United States v. Finley, 531 F.3d 288, 294 (4th Cir. 2008) ("In applying determine, States, 128 the `plainly the Ct. unreasonable' given standard, in Gall a we [v. first United is using S. instructions 586, 597 (2007)], whether sentence `unreasonable.'"). We Crudup, 461 affirm F.3d or at a sentence 439. that if is a not unreasonable. is we found "decide Only sentence will procedurally substantively unreasonable 2 whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable." * 531 F.3d at 294. Id.; see Finley, Although the district court must consider the Chapter 7 policy statements and the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), 3583 (2006), "the [district] court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke its previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum." Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We have thoroughly reviewed Longus' sentence and find it to be procedurally and substantively reasonable. Based on this conclusion, "it necessarily follows that" Longus' sentence is not "plainly unreasonable." Finley, 531 F.3d at 297. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment revoking Longus' supervised release and imposing a twenty-four month prison term. facts and legal before We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440; see contentions the court materials would decisional process. AFFIRMED "[F]or purposes of determining whether an unreasonable sentence is plainly unreasonable, `plain' is synonymous with `clear' or, equivalently, `obvious.'" Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439 (internal quotation marks, citation, and alteration omitted). * 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?