US v. Zee Zelazurro

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:06-cr-00561-MBS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999537556].. [14-4749, 14-4752]

Appeal: 14-4749

Doc: 22

Filed: 03/02/2015

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4749

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ZEE ZEE ZELAZURRO,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-4752

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ZEE ZEE ZELAZURRO,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Columbia.
Margaret B. Seymour, Senior
District Judge. (3:06-cr-00561-MBS-1; 4:08-cr-01076-RBH-1)

Submitted:

February 9, 2015

Decided:

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

March 2, 2015

Appeal: 14-4749

Doc: 22

Filed: 03/02/2015

Pg: 2 of 6

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James P. Rogers, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant.
William N. Nettles, United
States Attorney, Julius Ness Richardson, Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-4749

Doc: 22

Filed: 03/02/2015

Pg: 3 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Zee Zee Zelazurro appeals from the district court’s
judgments

revoking

concurrent

fifteen-month

contends

that

his

unreasonable.

his

supervised

release

sentences.

sentence

is

imposing

appeal,

On

and

Zelazurro

procedurally

and

substantively

We affirm.

“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a
sentence

upon

revocation

of

supervised

release.”

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

examining

a

revocation

sentence,

we

United

Accordingly,

“take[]

a

more

deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the
exercise

of

discretion

than

[G]uidelines sentences.”

reasonableness

review

for

United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d

652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).
will

affirm

a

revocation

sentence

that

falls

within

We
the

statutory maximum, unless we find the sentence to be “plainly
unreasonable.”
Cir.

2006).

United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th
In

reviewing

a

revocation

sentence,

we

first

determine “whether the sentence is unreasonable,” using the same
general analysis employed to review original sentences.
438.

Only

substantively

if

we

find

a

unreasonable

sentence is “plainly” so.

sentence
will

we

Id. at 439.

3

to

be

Id. at

procedurally

determine

whether

or
the

Appeal: 14-4749

Doc: 22

A
the

Filed: 03/02/2015

revocation

district

court

Pg: 4 of 6

sentence

has

is

procedurally

considered

the

reasonable

applicable

18

if

U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) (2012) factors and the policy statements contained in
Chapter Seven of the Guidelines.

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439.

The

district court also must provide an explanation of its chosen
sentence, although this explanation “need not be as detailed or
specific”

as

is

required

for

an

original

sentence.

United

States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).
be

possible

for

this

court

to

evaluate

from

“[t]he

It may
context

surrounding a district court’s explanation . . . both whether
the court considered the § 3553(a) factors and whether it did so
properly.”

United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 381

(4th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d
339,

345

(4th

Cir.

2006)

(explaining

that,

while

sentencing

court must consider statutory factors and explain the sentence,
it

need

not

explicitly

reference

§

3553(a)

or

discuss

every

factor on record).
Zelazurro

argues

that

the

district

court

failed

to

consider the § 3553(a) factors and, in particular, did not take
into
which

account
all

the

nature

occurred

within

and
a

circumstances
one-month

of

period.

the

violations

However,

the

record shows that the court imposed the fifteen-month terms of
imprisonment based upon Zelazurro’s continued disregard for the
court’s authority.

The court also found that his “excuses” were
4

Appeal: 14-4749

Doc: 22

insufficient
reasoning

Filed: 03/02/2015

explanation
took

characteristics

into
and

for

Pg: 5 of 6

his

repeated

account

implicitly

violations.

Zelazurro’s

considered

Zelazurro’s continued noncompliance.

Such

history

the

need

to

and
deter

These considerations are

among the relevant § 3553(a) factors the court was required to
consider in imposing its revocation sentence.
§§ 3553(a),

3583(e)

(2012).

Accordingly,

See 18 U.S.C.

we

find

that

the

district court adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors prior
to imposing sentence.
A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if
the district court states a proper basis for concluding that the
defendant should receive the sentence imposed.

Crudup, 461 F.3d

at 440.

In addition, an appellate presumption of reasonableness

applies

for

a

within-Guidelines

supervised release.

sentence

upon

revocation

of

See United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d

822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009).
Zelazurro contends that the district court failed to
consider

the

totality

of

the

circumstances

and

that

his

fifteen-month sentences are greater than necessary to accomplish
the goals of sentencing.

We conclude that Zelazurro’s sentences

are substantively reasonable, as he has failed to rebut their
presumed reasonableness.
assessed
applicable

the
§

totality
3553(a)

As discussed above, the district court
of

the

factors,

circumstances,
and

5

concluded

including

that

a

term

the
of

Appeal: 14-4749

Doc: 22

Filed: 03/02/2015

Pg: 6 of 6

imprisonment within the advisory Guidelines range was necessary
given Zelazurro’s repeated violations and failure to conform his
conduct.

This conclusion was based on proper sentencing factors

described in § 3553(a), and thus, the sentences were reasonable.
Accordingly,
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

we

affirm

argument

adequately

Zelazurro’s

because

presented

in

the
the

sentences.
facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

6