US v. Carl Boltz

Filing 920091208

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-5158

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CARL JAMES BOLTZ, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:04-cr-00187-F-1)

Submitted:

September 28, 2009

Decided:

December 8, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Carl sentence affirm. On appeal, Boltz argues that the sentence imposed is plainly unreasonable because the district court failed to James on Boltz appeals of his twenty-four-month release. We

imposed

revocation

supervised

consider whether community-based drug treatment programs would have provided Boltz with needed treatment. Boltz does not

challenge the district court's decision to revoke his supervised release or its guidelines calculations. The Government responds

that the district court's sentence is not unreasonable. In United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006), we held that "revocation sentences should be

reviewed to determine whether they are `plainly unreasonable' with regard to to those [18 U.S.C.] release must § 3553(a) (2006) factors

applicable Although the

supervised court

revocation the

sentences." Chapter Seven

district

consider

policy statements and the applicable requirements of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e) (2006), "the court ultimately has broad

discretion to revoke its previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum." 439 (internal quotation marks and Crudup, 461 F.3d at omitted). A

citation

sentencing court must provide a "statement of reasons for the sentence imposed," United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 657 2

(4th Cir. 2007) (probation revocation), but the court need not "robotically "explicitly tick through every § § 3553(a)'s 3553(a) every subsection," on the or

discuss

factor

record."

United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). Our review of the record in this case convinces us that the district court adequately explained its reasons for the sentencing and we find that the sentence is neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. 531 F.3d 288, 552 a 297 (4th 38, Cir. See United States v. Finley, 2008) S. (applying Ct. 586, if Gall 597 it v. United in

States,

U.S.

___, to

128

(2007), is

reviewing

sentence

determine

plainly

unreasonable). We therefore affirm Boltz's sentence. 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. AFFIRMED

3