US v. Nathane Blackmon


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4009 Doc: 37 Filed: 01/09/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4009 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NATHANE JOHN BLACKMON, a/k/a Nathan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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?