US v. Demetrius Wright
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:07-cr-00424-JAG-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000020525].. [16-4314]
Appeal: 16-4314
Doc: 23
Filed: 02/09/2017
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4314
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEMETRIUS WRIGHT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District
Judge. (3:07-cr-00424-JAG-1)
Submitted:
December 28, 2016
Decided:
February 9, 2017
Before TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt,
Carolyn V. Grady, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney,
Jessica D. Aber, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-4314
Doc: 23
Filed: 02/09/2017
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Demetrius Wright appeals his 36-month sentence, which the
district court imposed after revoking Wright’s supervised release.
We affirm.
“A
district
court
has
broad
discretion
when
sentence upon revocation of supervised release.”
Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013).
imposing
a
United States v.
We will affirm a
revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and not
plainly unreasonable.
United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 494 (2015).
whether
the
unreasonable.
Cir. 2006).
sentence
is
procedurally
We first consider
or
substantively
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th
In making this inquiry, “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 unreasonable must we decide if it is
plainly so.”
omitted).
Webb, 738 F.3d at 640 (internal quotation marks
While
a
district
court
must
explain
a
revocation
sentence, the court “need not be as detailed or specific when
imposing a revocation sentence.”
United States v. Thompson, 595
F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).
We reject Wright’s claims that the district court did not
meaningfully consider the revocation range of 6 to 12 months’
imprisonment, gave undue weight to general deterrence, and imposed
2
Appeal: 16-4314
Doc: 23
Filed: 02/09/2017
Pg: 3 of 3
a sentence that created unwarranted sentencing disparities.
court
considered
the
policy-statement
range
reasons for varying upward from that range.
and
The
articulated
The district court’s
reasoning did not unduly focus on general deterrence; instead, the
court also discussed other applicable sentencing factors.
Finally,
we
reject
disproportionately
long
Wright’s
sentence
claim
that
compared
he
to
received
offenders
a
who
committed Grade A or B release violations. Such a comparison lacks
meaning.
See United States v. Chandia, 675 F.3d 329, 342 (4th
Cir. 2012).
Having rejected Wright’s claims, we also conclude that the
district court imposed a procedurally and substantively reasonable
sentence. Thus, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
material
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?