US v. Jose Perez


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-4772 Doc: 24 Filed: 06/28/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4772 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSE ALBERTO PEREZ, Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?