US v. Joseph Osamwonyi


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:03-cr-00435-REP-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998473003] [10-4351]

Download PDF
US v. Joseph Osamwonyi Doc. 0 Case: 10-4351 Document: 27 Date Filed: 11/29/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4351 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JOSEPH IYOBOSA OSAMWONYI, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:03-cr-00435-REP-1) Submitted: October 25, 2010 Decided: November 29, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Mary E. Maguire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, Research and Writing Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, S. David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Case: 10-4351 Document: 27 Date Filed: 11/29/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Joseph Iyobosa Osamwonyi appeals the district court's order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to six months' imprisonment, followed by four years and six months' supervised release. On appeal, Osamwonyi contends that his sentence is plainly unreasonable. we affirm. A district court has Finding no reversible error, broad discretion to impose a sentence upon revoking a defendant's supervised release. States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). United We will affirm unless the sentence is "plainly unreasonable" in light of the applicable 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2006) factors. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). We unreasonable, substantive first must decide whether the in the sentence is and of "follow[ing] generally that we procedural our review considerations employ original sentences." reasonable if the Id. at 438. district court A sentence is procedurally has considered the policy statements contained in chapter seven of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("USSG") and the applicable 3553(a) factors and has explained adequately the sentence chosen, though it need not explain the sentence in as much detail as when imposing the original sentence. Id. at 439. A sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court states a proper basis for its 2 Case: 10-4351 Document: 27 Date Filed: 11/29/2010 Page: 3 imposition of a sentence up to the statutory maximum. 440. Id. at If, after considering the above, we determine that the Id. at 439. imprisonment court and are from any that is sentence is not unreasonable, we will affirm. Osamwonyi supervised plainly prison release argues term that both by the imposed Because the district was unreasonable. on September 10, Osamwonyi and has released 2010, of his his not demonstrated we hold collateral Osamwonyi's moot. 2008). consequences challenge to imprisonment, upon imprisonment revocation See United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 284 (4th Cir. Further, we hold that the district court's imposition of four years and six months of the and supervised district release court the was not unreasonable. explained factors its and Procedurally, chosen USSG the sentence chapter adequately 3553(a) statements. basis for considered policy a seven stated Substantively, district court proper sentencing Osamwonyi within the statutory maximum. A term of supervised release imposed upon revocation is limited to "the term of supervised release authorized by statute for the offense that resulted in the original term of supervised release, less any term of imprisonment that was imposed upon revocation of supervised release." 2010). Osamwonyi's 18 U.S.C.A. 3583(h) (West 2000 & Supp. bank fraud 3 conviction, resulting in his Case: 10-4351 Document: 27 Date Filed: 11/29/2010 Page: 4 original term of supervised release, is a Class B felony, see 18 U.S.C. 3559(a)(1) (2006); 18 U.S.C. 1344 (2006), for which the maximum term of supervised release is five years. 5D1.2(a)(1) (2003). USSG Thus, the district court did not err when it imposed a four and a half year period of supervised release (five year maximum minus six month term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation). was not Because we conclude that Osamwonyi's sentence we need not consider whether it was unreasonable, plainly so. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

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?