US v. Christopher Lineberry

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:02-cr-00044-JPJ-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999925155].. [16-4019]

Appeal: 16-4019

Doc: 20

Filed: 09/08/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LINEBERRY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon.
James P. Jones, District
Judge. (1:02-cr-00044-JPJ-1)

Submitted:

August 18, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge,
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Decided:

DUNCAN,

September 8, 2016

Circuit

Judge,

and

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Brian J. Beck,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellant. John P. Fishwick, Jr., United States Attorney, Kevin
L. Jayne, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4019

Doc: 20

Filed: 09/08/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Christopher

Lee

Lineberry

appeals

from

the

42-month

sentence imposed by the district court upon revocation of his
supervised release.
discretion

when

We affirm.

imposing

supervised release.”
(4th Cir. 2013).

a

A district court “has broad
sentence

upon

revocation

of

United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640

A revocation sentence that is both within the

applicable statutory maximum and not “plainly unreasonable” will
be affirmed

on appeal.

United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370,

373 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 494 (2015); United
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437-38 (4th Cir. 2006).
conducting

this

reasonableness,
considerations”
sentence.

review,
utilizing

employed

we
“the

in

assess

the

procedural

evaluating

an

sentence
and

In
for

substantive

original

criminal

Id. at 438.

We find that Lineberry’s sentence is both procedurally and
substantively

reasonable.

The

district

court

appropriately

considered Lineberry’s argument for a below-Guidelines sentence
and adequately explained its reasons for the sentence imposed.
Accordingly, we affirm.

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid in the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2