US v. Steven Omelian


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4469 Doc: 25 Filed: 01/04/2017 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4469 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. STEVEN OMELIAN, Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?