US v. Joseph Osamwonyi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4351 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff ­ Appellee, v. JOSEPH IYOBOSA OSAMWONYI, Defendant ­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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

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