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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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