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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. .. [16-4469]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:12-cr-00007-RLV-DCK-1)
December 7, 2016
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
Steven Omelian pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by
a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012).
district court sentenced Omelian to 14 months of imprisonment,
followed by 2 years of supervised release.
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.
arguing that the sentence is plainly unreasonable.
error, we affirm.
explain the revocation sentence and it is therefore procedurally
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
considerations employed in reviewing original sentences.
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006).
district court must consider the policy statements in Chapter
Pg: 3 of 4
factors, “the court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke
its previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to
the statutory maximum.”
Id. at 439 (internal quotation marks
unreasonable, we will not proceed to the second prong of the
analysis — whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable.
sentence, “whether the district court imposes an above, below,
or within-Guidelines sentence.”
United States v. Thompson, 595
“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.”
Id. (internal quotation
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Pg: 4 of 4
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?