US v. Michael Martisko

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:07-cr-00104-IMK-JES-3 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998613258].. [10-5191]

Appeal: 10-5191

Document: 23

Date Filed: 06/16/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-5191

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL B. MARTISKO,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00104-IMK-JES-3)

Submitted:

June 2, 2011

Before SHEDD and
Circuit Judge.

WYNN,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

June 16, 2011

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kristen Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, Martinsburg,
West Virginia; L. Richard Walker, Senior Litigator, Clarksburg,
West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United
States Attorney, Zelda E. Wesley, Assistant United States
Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-5191

Document: 23

Date Filed: 06/16/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Michael B. Martisko appeals the sixteen-month sentence
imposed following the district court’s revocation of supervised
release.

On appeal, Martisko contends that the district court

imposed a plainly unreasonable sentence.

Finding no error, we

affirm.
The district court has broad discretion to impose a
sentence upon revoking a defendant’s supervised release.
States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).
assume

“a

deferential

appellate

posture

concerning

United
Thus, we

issues

of

fact and the exercise of [that] discretion,” United States v.
Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation
marks omitted), and will affirm unless the sentence is “plainly
unreasonable” in light of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006) factors.

461 F.3d at 437.

Our first step in reviewing a sentence imposed upon
revocation

of

supervised

sentence is unreasonable.”
generally

the

procedural

release

is

Id. at 438.
and

to

“decide

whether

the

In doing so, we “follow

substantive

employed in reviewing original sentences.

Id.

considerations”
A sentence is

procedurally reasonable if the district court has considered the
policy statements contained in Chapter 7 of the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual and the applicable § 3553(a) factors, id. at
439, and has adequately explained the sentence chosen, though it
2

Appeal: 10-5191

Document: 23

Date Filed: 06/16/2011

Page: 3 of 3

need not explain the sentence in as much detail as when imposing
the original sentence.

Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547.

In some

cases, “a district court’s reasons for imposing a within-range
sentence

may

be

clear

from

context,

including

the

court’s

statements to the defendant throughout the sentencing hearing.”
Id. (citation omitted).

Unless the district court completely

fails to indicate any reasons for its sentence, “[w]e may be
hard-pressed

to

find

any

explanation

for

within-range,

revocation sentences insufficient given the amount of deference
we afford district courts when imposing these sentences.”

Id.

A sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court
states a proper basis for its imposition of a sentence up to the
statutory maximum.

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.

If we determine

that the sentence is not unreasonable, we will affirm.

Id. at

439.
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
revocation sentence is not unreasonable, let alone plainly so.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
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

3