US v. Jose Perez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00256-JAB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999871407].. [15-4772]

Appeal: 15-4772

Doc: 24

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4772

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE ALBERTO PEREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:11-cr-00256-JAB-1)

Submitted:

June 23, 2016

Decided:

June 28, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough,
Assistant
Federal
Public
Defender,
Winston-Salem,
North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Randall S. Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4772

Doc: 24

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jose Alberto Perez appeals his 24-month sentence imposed
upon revocation of his supervised release.

On appeal, Perez

asserts that his sentence is plainly unreasonable because it is
longer than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing.

We

affirm.
“A

district

court

has

broad

discretion

when

sentence upon revocation of supervised release.”
v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013).

imposing

a

United States

We will affirm a

sentence if it is within the applicable statutory maximum and
not plainly unreasonable.

United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d

370, 373 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 494 (2015).

“Only

if a revocation sentence is unreasonable must we assess whether
it is plainly so.”

Id.

Perez raises no procedural challenge to his sentence.

A

revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the district
court states a proper basis for concluding that the defendant
should
maximum.
2006).
and

receive

sentence

imposed,

up

to

the

statutory

United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 440 (4th Cir.
Here, when considering the applicable sentencing factors

imposing

violations,
reentry

the

sentence,
including

program

the

court

signing

without

discussed

himself

out

permission

and

Perez’s
of

a

willful

residential

absconding

from

supervision by failing to alert his probation officer to his
2

Appeal: 15-4772

Doc: 24

whereabouts.
conclude

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), 3583(e) (2012).

that

Perez’s

sentence

is

not

unreasonable

We
and,

therefore, not plainly so.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3