US v. Marco Wigfall


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:09-cr-00039-FDW-9 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999776248].. [15-4538]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-4538 Doc: 27 Filed: 03/17/2016 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4538 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARCO WIGFALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:09-cr-00039-FDW-9) Submitted: March 1, 2016 Decided: March 17, 2016 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew Nis Leerberg, SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, Kip D. Nelson, SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-4538 Doc: 27 Filed: 03/17/2016 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Marco Wigfall appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 12 months’ imprisonment. Wigfall argues that his sentence was plainly unreasonable because the district court mistakenly believed that Wigfall’s revocation sentence had to run consecutively to his state prison sentence. that it had discretion to impose a concurrent or consecutive sentence. See U.S. the district We have reviewed the record and conclude Sentencing statement court Guidelines expressing correctly Manual preference understood § 7B1.3(f) for that (2009) consecutive (policy sentences); United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2010) (discussing non-binding nature of policy statements concerning revocation). judgment. legal before Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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?