US v. Nathane Blackmon

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:11-cr-00231-F-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000000080].. [16-4009]

Appeal: 16-4009

Doc: 37

Filed: 01/09/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NATHANE JOHN BLACKMON, a/k/a Nathan Blackmon,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:11-cr-00231-F-2)

Submitted:

December 22, 2016

Decided:

January 9, 2017

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
First
Assistant
Federal
Public
Defender,
Raleigh,
North
Carolina, for Appellant.
John Stuart Bruce, Acting United
States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Phillip A. Rubin,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4009

Doc: 37

Filed: 01/09/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Nathane John Blackmon appeals the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 24 months’
imprisonment.
“A

Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

district

sentence

upon

court

has

broad

revocation

of

discretion

supervised

when

imposing

release.”

United

States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013).
affirm

a

revocation

sentence

if

it

is

within

maximum and is not ‘plainly unreasonable.’”

a

“We will

the

statutory

Id. (quoting United

States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006)).

“When

reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable,
we

must

first

determine

whether

it

is

unreasonable

at

all.”

United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010).

A

revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district
court

adequately

explains

the

sentence

after

considering

the

Sentencing Guidelines’ Chapter Seven policy statements and the
applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors.

See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(e) (2012); Thompson, 595 F.3d at 546-47.
Blackmon
unreasonable

claims
because

that
the

his

sentence

is

court

failed

district

procedurally
to

explain

adequately its reasons for imposing a 24-month sentence, which
equaled

the

statutory

maximum

and

exceeded

the

applicable

Sentencing Guidelines’ advisory policy statement range.
reviewed

the

record,

we

find
2

that

the

district

Having
court’s

Appeal: 16-4009

Doc: 37

Filed: 01/09/2017

explanation

of

under

circumstances.

the

this

sentence,

(discussing standard).

Pg: 3 of 3

although

See

brief,

Thompson,

595

was

sufficient

F.3d

at

547

We therefore conclude that Blackmon’s

sentence is not plainly unreasonable.
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