US v. Richard Garries
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RICHARD N. GARRIES, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:03-cr-00069-HCM-TEM-1)
January 28, 2010
February 16, 2010
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence H. Woodward, Jr., SHUTTLEWORTH, RULOFF, SWAIN, HADDAD & MORECOCK, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Robert J. Seidel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Richard N. Garries was convicted of one count of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1342 (2006). While serving
his three-year term of supervised release, Garries engaged in conduct which resulted in his conviction on twenty-four felony counts involving fraud, money laundering, false statements, and structuring financial transactions. Based on these convictions,
in conjunction with other related violations of his supervised release, the district court revoked Garries' supervised release and imposed a twenty-four-month sentence for nine violations of supervised release. Garries appeals this sentence, arguing that
the district court erred by sentencing him beyond his six-totwelve-month advisory sentencing range. follow, we affirm. We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed statutory For the reasons that
range and is not plainly unreasonable. 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006).
United States v. Crudup,
District courts ultimately
have broad discretion to revoke a previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. Id. at 439.
Here, the district court imposed the maximum sentence, noting that Garries' testimony at the and revocation hearing (JA was 102).
We do not review credibility determinations on appeal, Glasser 2
v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942), and find that Garries' sentence was not plainly unreasonable. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 437.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional
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?