US v. Jamar Lamont Hunter

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cr-00076-JAG-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999767135].. [15-4375]

Appeal: 15-4375

Doc: 28

Filed: 03/03/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4375

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMAR LAMONT HUNTER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:11-cr-00076-JAG-1)

Submitted:

January 26, 2016

Decided:

March 3, 2016

Before WYNN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Geremy C. Kamens, Acting Federal Public Defender, Frances H.
Pratt, Elizabeth W. Hanes, Assistant Federal Public Defenders,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
Dana J. Boente, United
States Attorney, Erik S. Siebert, Assistant United States
Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4375

Doc: 28

Filed: 03/03/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jamar

Lamont

Hunter

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twentyfour months’ imprisonment.

On appeal, Hunter contends that his

sentence is substantively unreasonable because he committed only
one

Grade

C

violation

and

the

district

court

consideration of the relevant statutory factors.

erred

in

its

Upon review of

the record, we affirm.
In

reviewing

a

sentence

imposed

upon

revocation

of

supervised release, this Court takes a “deferential appellate
posture

concerning

discretion.”

issues

of

fact

and

the

exercise

of

United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439 (4th

Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We will affirm a

sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is
not plainly unreasonable.
544,

546

(4th

Cir.

United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d

2010).

The

first

step

in

this

review

requires us to determine whether the sentence is unreasonable.
Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438.

Only if the sentence is procedurally

or substantively unreasonable does our inquiry proceed to the
second step of the analysis to determine whether the sentence is
plainly unreasonable.

Id. at 438–39.

Hunter does not challenge the procedural reasonableness of
his

sentence.

unreasonable.

Instead,

he

argues

it

is

substantively

A sentence is substantively reasonable if the
2

Appeal: 15-4375

Doc: 28

district

Filed: 03/03/2016

court

defendant

stated

should

a

receive

statutory maximum.

Pg: 3 of 3

proper
the

basis

sentence

for

concluding

imposed,

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.

up

to

the
the

“A court need not

be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence
as it must be when imposing a post-conviction sentence, but it
still

must

imposed.”

provide

a

statement

of

reasons

for

the

sentence

Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks

omitted).
In this case, the district court appropriately considered
the

Chapter

Seven

statutory factors.

policy

statement

range

and

applicable

In announcing its sentence, the district

court reasonably found that Hunter’s failure to adhere to his
supervised release terms and breach of the court’s trust after
receiving relatively lenient sentences on two prior occasions
supported the twenty-four-month maximum.

The court also acted

within its discretion in sentencing him to the maximum term.
Because

Hunter’s

sentence

is

procedurally

and

substantively

reasonable, it is not plainly unreasonable.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3