US v. Marlon Viera


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cr-00377-F-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999999012].. [16-4287]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4287 Doc: 28 Filed: 01/06/2017 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4287 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARLON DANILLO VIERA, a/k/a Marlon Caranza-Dera, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:15-cr-00377-F-1) Submitted: December 28, 2016 Decided: January 6, 2017 Before TRAXLER, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-4287 Doc: 28 Filed: 01/06/2017 Pg: 2 of 4 PER CURIAM Based on Marlon Danillo Viera’s guilty plea to illegal reentry, the district court revoked his supervised release for a prior offense and sentenced him to 10 months’ imprisonment. The court ordered Viera to serve his revocation sentence consecutive to his 30-month sentence for illegal reentry. arguing that the district court erred revocation sentence to run consecutively. when Viera appeals, it ordered the For the reasons that follow, we affirm. We will affirm a revocation sentence if it falls within the applicable statutory maximum and is not “plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 494 (2015). Under this standard, we first determine whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. In 2013). doing so, “we strike a more deferential appellate posture than we do when reviewing original sentences.” Padgett, 788 F.3d at 373 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Only if we find the sentence whether it is plainly so.” unreasonable must we decide Webb, 738 F.3d at 640 (internal quotation marks omitted). A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court considered the policy statements in Chapter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines Manual, the policy-statement range, 2 Appeal: 16-4287 Doc: 28 Filed: 01/06/2017 Pg: 3 of 4 and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors. 788 F.3d at 373; see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012). sentence is substantively reasonable if the identified a proper basis for its sentence. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 440 (4th Cir. Padgett, A revocation district court United States v. 2006). We reasonable a sentence within the applicable range. presume Padgett, 788 F.3d at 373. Here, the district court imposed a reasonable revocation sentence. Upon revoking Viera’s supervised release, the district court considered the appropriate factors under Chapter 7 and § 3553(a) and sentenced Viera to a sentence within the policy-statement basis for the range. The sentence court based on also Viera’s conduct while under supervised release. Viera’s contention, the court identified did pattern a of proper illegal Moreover, contrary to not err by imposing a consecutive sentence for the supervised release violation merely because the same conduct criminal conviction. provided the basis for a separate See United States v. Johnson, 138 F.3d 115, 118 (4th Cir. 1998). Because the district court imposed a reasonable revocation sentence, we decline to overturn it on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. dispense with oral argument because 3 the facts and We legal Appeal: 16-4287 Doc: 28 contentions are Filed: 01/06/2017 adequately Pg: 4 of 4 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

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?