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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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?