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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. .. [15-4375]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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)
January 26, 2016
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
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
consideration of the relevant statutory factors.
Upon review of
the record, we affirm.
supervised release, this Court takes a “deferential appellate
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.
United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d
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
Id. at 438–39.
Hunter does not challenge the procedural reasonableness of
A sentence is substantively reasonable if the
Pg: 3 of 3
Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.
“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
Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks
In this case, the district court appropriately considered
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.
reasonable, it is not plainly unreasonable.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?