US v. Alfredo Nunez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:03-cr-70042-JLK-4. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999539602]. [14-4607]

Appeal: 14-4607

Doc: 23

Filed: 03/04/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4607

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ALFREDO HERNANDEZ NUNEZ, a/k/a Alfredo Nunez Henandez,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville.
Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (4:03-cr-70042-JLK-4)

Submitted:

February 19, 2015

Decided:

March 4, 2015

Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine
Lee, Research and Writing Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellant.
Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Anthony
P. Giorno, First Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4607

Doc: 23

Filed: 03/04/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Alfredo Hernandez Nunez appeals the thirty-month sentence
imposed following the revocation of his supervised release term.
On appeal, Nunez challenges both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness

of

his

sentence.

Finding

no

error,

plain

or

otherwise, we affirm.
“A

district

sentence

has

supervised

when

imposing

a

States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013).

We will

revocation

of

discretion

United

a

revocation

broad

release.”

affirm

upon

court

sentence

that

is

within

the

prescribed

statutory range and not plainly unreasonable.

United States v.

Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006).

We first consider

whether

the

sentence

is

procedurally

or

substantively

unreasonable, employing the same general considerations applied
during review of original sentences.

Id. at 438.

In this

initial inquiry, we “take[] a more deferential appellate posture
concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than
reasonableness

review

for

guidelines

sentences.”

United

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

If we find the sentence unreasonable,

we then must determine whether it is “plainly” so.
A

supervised

reasonable
Guidelines’

if

release

the

Chapter

revocation

district
7

court

advisory
2

sentence
considered

policy

Id. at 657.

is
the

procedurally

statements

Sentencing
and

the

18

Appeal: 14-4607

U.S.C.
release

Doc: 23

Filed: 03/04/2015

§ 3553(a)

(2012)

revocation

Pg: 3 of 4

factors

context,

applicable

see

18

to

U.S.C.

the

supervised

§ 3583(e)

(2012);

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439, and provided sufficient explanation for
the sentence imposed, see United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d
544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).

While a district court must explain

its sentence, the court “need not be as detailed or specific
when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing
a post-conviction sentence.”

Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547.

A

revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the district
court stated a proper basis for concluding the defendant should
receive

the

sentence

imposed,

up

to

the

statutory

maximum.

district

court’s

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.
On

appeal,

explanation

for

Nunez
the

asserts

sentence

that

was

inadequate

upward variance sentence it imposed.
circumstances

of

the

release

the

to

support

the

He also argues that the

violations

and

Nunez’s

criminal

history were an inadequate basis for imposing an upward variance
sentence that was run consecutively to the state and federal
sentences

imposed

for

the

crimes

underlying

his

release

The

court’s

violations.
We

find

statements

these

clearly

arguments
express

unpersuasive.

concern

for

Nunez’s

pattern

of

criminal behavior, his failure to be deterred by prior sentences
and

removal

proceedings,

and

the
3

likelihood

that

he

would

Appeal: 14-4607

Doc: 23

reoffend.

Filed: 03/04/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

The court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an

upward variance sentence on this basis.

Moreover, while Nunez

challenges the reasonableness of the court’s decision to run his
sentence consecutively to his other sentences, we conclude that
this decision is reasonable.

See USSG § 7B1.3(f), p.s.; United

States v. Johnson, 640 F.3d 195, 208 (6th Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4