US v. Marco Wigfall

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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