US v. Steven Omelian

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:12-cr-00007-RLV-DCK-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999997436].. [16-4469]

Appeal: 16-4469

Doc: 25

Filed: 01/04/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4469

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
STEVEN OMELIAN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:12-cr-00007-RLV-DCK-1)

Submitted:

December 7, 2016

Decided:

January 4, 2017

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jennifer Coulter, COULTER LAW OFFICE, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney,
Anthony J. Enright, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4469

Doc: 25

Filed: 01/04/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Steven Omelian pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by
a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012).

The

district court sentenced Omelian to 14 months of imprisonment,
followed by 2 years of supervised release.

Following Omelian’s

release from incarceration, the district court twice revoked his
supervised release for various violations.

After Omelian was

released from custody the third time, the district court again
revoked Omelian’s supervised release and sentenced him above the
advisory Guidelines range to 24 months of imprisonment without
imposing a further term of supervised release.

Omelian appeals,

arguing that the sentence is plainly unreasonable.

Finding no

error, we affirm.
Omelian

contends

that

the

court

failed

to

adequately

explain the revocation sentence and it is therefore procedurally
unreasonable.

We review a sentence imposed as a result of a

supervised release violation to determine whether the sentence
is plainly unreasonable.

United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d

370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015).

The first step in this analysis is a

determination of whether the sentence is unreasonable; in making
this

determination,

we

follow

the

procedural

and

substantive

considerations employed in reviewing original sentences.
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006).

United

Although a

district court must consider the policy statements in Chapter
2

Appeal: 16-4469

Seven

Doc: 25

of

Filed: 01/04/2017

the

Sentencing

Pg: 3 of 4

Guidelines

along

with

the

statutory

factors, “the court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke
its previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to
the statutory maximum.”
omitted).

If

a

Id. at 439 (internal quotation marks

sentence

imposed

after

a

revocation

is

not

unreasonable, we will not proceed to the second prong of the
analysis — whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable.

Id. at

438-39.
A

district

court

must

adequately

explain

a

revocation

sentence, “whether the district court imposes an above, below,
or within-Guidelines sentence.”
F.3d

544,

547

omitted).

(4th

Cir.

United States v. Thompson, 595

2010)

(internal

quotation

marks

“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.”
marks

omitted).

conclude
chosen

that

We
the

sentence

follows,

have

thoroughly

district

and

therefore,

the
that

court

sentence
the

Id. (internal quotation
reviewed

the

sufficiently
is

not

sentence

record

and

explained

the

unreasonable.

is

not

is

It

plainly

unreasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

3

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 16-4469

Doc: 25

contentions

are

Filed: 01/04/2017

adequately

Pg: 4 of 4

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4