US v. Demetrius Wright
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:07-cr-00424-JAG-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-4314]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District
December 28, 2016
February 9, 2017
Before TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Demetrius Wright appeals his 36-month sentence, which the
district court imposed after revoking Wright’s supervised release.
sentence upon revocation of supervised release.”
Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013).
United States v.
We will affirm a
revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and not
United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 494 (2015).
We first consider
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
Webb, 738 F.3d at 640 (internal quotation marks
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
Pg: 3 of 3
a sentence that created unwarranted sentencing disparities.
reasons for varying upward from that range.
The district court’s
reasoning did not unduly focus on general deterrence; instead, the
court also discussed other applicable sentencing factors.
committed Grade A or B release violations. Such a comparison lacks
See United States v. Chandia, 675 F.3d 329, 342 (4th
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
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?