US v. Jonathan Long
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:10-cr-00067-RBS-TEM-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999990714]. Mailed to: JONATHAN C. LONG. [16-4335]
Appeal: 16-4335
Doc: 26
Filed: 12/20/2016
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4335
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
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)
Submitted:
December 15, 2016
Decided:
December 20, 2016
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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.
Amy
Elizabeth Cross, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-4335
Doc: 26
Filed: 12/20/2016
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan
C.
Long
appeals
the
district
court’s
order
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
violation.
Long filed a pro se supplemental brief claiming that
the sentence was unreasonable.
brief.
The Government did not file a
We affirm.
“A
district
sentence
has
imposing
a
We will
statutory
range
sentence
and
is
not
supervised
when
States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013).
revocation
of
discretion
United
a
revocation
broad
release.”
affirm
upon
court
that
“is
plainly
within
the
prescribed
unreasonable.”
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 440 (4th Cir. 2006).
consider
whether
the
sentence
substantively
unreasonable,
considerations
employed
sentences.
Id.
at
in
438.
imposed
is
applying
our
review
Only
if
we
We first
procedurally
the
of
United
same
general
original
criminal
find
the
sentence
unreasonable will we consider whether it is “plainly” so.
at 439.
2
and
Id.
Appeal: 16-4335
Doc: 26
A
Filed: 12/20/2016
supervised
release
reasonable
if
the
statements
contained
Pg: 3 of 4
revocation
district
in
sentence
court
Chapter
is
considered
Seven
of
the
procedurally
the
policy
Sentencing
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.”
Carter,
564
F.3d
325,
330
(4th
Cir.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007)).
2009)
United States v.
(quoting
Gall
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
that
Long
had
at
least
one
Grade
B
violation.
See
United
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.
3
Appeal: 16-4335
Doc: 26
In
Filed: 12/20/2016
accordance
with
Pg: 4 of 4
Anders,
we
have
reviewed
the
entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.
court
We therefore affirm the district court’s order.
requires
that
counsel
inform
Long,
in
writing,
of
This
the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.
If Long requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel
may
move
representation.
in
and
materials
legal
before
court
for
leave
to
withdraw
from
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Long.
facts
this
We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions
are
adequately
this
and
argument
court
presented
would
not
in
the
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4
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?