US v. Jamar Lamont Hunter


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-4375 Doc: 28 Filed: 03/03/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4375 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMAR LAMONT HUNTER, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?