US v. Guillermo Salazar

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:09-cr-00727-PMD-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998449184] [10-4466]

US v. Guillermo Salazar

Doc. 0

Case: 10-4466 Document: 17

Date Filed: 10/20/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4466 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GUILLERMO ALFONSON SALAZAR, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:09-cr-00727-PMD-1) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 20, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ann Briks Walsh, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, William Walter Wilkins, III, United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-4466 Document: 17

Date Filed: 10/20/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Guillermo Alfonson Salazar appeals the district

court's judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to sixty months' imprisonment. Salazar's attorney has filed

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the issue of whether the district court's revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable. Salazar was notified of his

right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm. We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed statutory

range and not plainly unreasonable. 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006).

United States v. Crudup, We first consider whether Id.

the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. at 438.

In this initial inquiry, we take a more deferential

posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than reasonableness review for guidelines sentences. United Only if

States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007).

we find the sentence procedurally or substantively unreasonable must we decide whether it is "plainly" so. Id. at 657.

While a district court must consider the Chapter Seven policy statements and the statutory factors applicable to

revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e) (2006), 2

Case: 10-4466 Document: 17

Date Filed: 10/20/2010

Page: 3

the court need not robotically tick through every subsection, and ultimately, the court has broad discretion to revoke the previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. Id. at 656-57. Moreover, while a district

court must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence, the court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a

revocation sentence as when imposing a post-conviction sentence. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). We have reviewed the record and conclude that

Salazar's sentence is within the prescribed statutory range and not plainly unreasonable. At his revocation hearing, Salazar

admitted the violation alleged by the probation officer, and the court properly considered the guidelines and applicable

statutory factors in imposing its sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform her client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. filed, but counsel If the client requests that a petition be believes that such a petition would be

frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that Finally, we dispense

a copy thereof was served on the client. 3

Case: 10-4466 Document: 17

Date Filed: 10/20/2010

Page: 4

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

4