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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. .. [16-4287]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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)
December 28, 2016
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
reentry, the district court revoked his supervised release for a
prior offense and sentenced him to 10 months’ imprisonment.
court ordered Viera to serve his revocation sentence consecutive
to his 30-month sentence for illegal reentry.
revocation sentence to run consecutively.
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
United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th
appellate posture than we do when reviewing original sentences.”
Padgett, 788 F.3d at 373 (internal quotation marks omitted).
whether it is plainly so.”
Webb, 738 F.3d at 640 (internal
quotation marks omitted).
district court considered the policy statements in Chapter Seven
of the Sentencing Guidelines Manual, the policy-statement range,
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).
identified a proper basis for its sentence.
United States v.
reasonable a sentence within the applicable range.
F.3d at 373.
Here, the district court imposed a reasonable revocation
district court considered the appropriate factors under Chapter
7 and § 3553(a) and sentenced Viera to a sentence within the
conduct while under supervised release.
Moreover, contrary to
consecutive sentence for the supervised release violation merely
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
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
Pg: 4 of 4
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?