US v. Jonathan Long
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:10-cr-00067-RBS-TEM-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: JONATHAN C. LONG. [16-4335]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
JONATHAN C. LONG,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News.
Rebecca Beach Smith,
Chief District Judge. (4:10-cr-00067-RBS-TEM-1)
December 15, 2016
December 20, 2016
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant,
Appellate Attorney, Suzanne V. Katchmar, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
Elizabeth Cross, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
revoking supervised release and imposing 18 months’ imprisonment
and 42 months’ supervised release.
Long’s counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
questioning the reasonableness of the sentence and whether the
district court erred by determining that Long had a Grade B
Long filed a pro se supplemental brief claiming that
the sentence was unreasonable.
The Government did not file a
States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013).
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 440 (4th Cir. 2006).
unreasonable will we consider whether it is “plainly” so.
Pg: 3 of 4
Guidelines and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors applicable
to revocation sentences.
Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-39; see also
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012).
The district court must also provide a statement of reasons
for the sentence imposed.
United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d
544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).
“Regardless of whether the district
court imposes an above, below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it
must place on the record an ‘individualized assessment’ based on
the particular facts of the case before it.”
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007)).
United States v.
“A court need not be as
detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it
must be when imposing a post-conviction sentence, but it still
must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed.”
Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We find no error with the district court’s determination
States v. Wynn, 786 F.3d 339, 343 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 136
S. Ct. 276 (2015).
We further conclude that the sentence was
both procedurally and substantively reasonable.
Pg: 4 of 4
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
We therefore affirm the district court’s order.
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
If Long requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Long.
We dispense with oral argument because 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?