US v. Roger Plumley
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:05-cr-00224-2. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-4534]
Pg: 1 of 5
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 Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley.
Irene C. Berger,
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00224-2)
January 26, 2017
March 1, 2017
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christian M. Capece, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Research & Writing Specialist, Lex A. Coleman, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Carol A. Casto, United States Attorney, Miller Bushong,
Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 5
months’ supervised release.
For the following
reasons, we affirm.
We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the
statutory maximum and not plainly unreasonable.
v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S.
Ct. 494 (2015).
Under this standard, we first consider whether
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006).
In making this inquiry, “we strike a more deferential appellate
posture than we do when reviewing original sentences.”
788 F.3d at 373 (internal quotation marks omitted).
district court considered the policy statements in Chapter Seven
of the Sentencing Guidelines Manual, the policy statement range,
U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012).
Chapter Seven directs district
courts to “sanction primarily the defendant’s breach of trust,
while taking into account, to a limited degree, the seriousness
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ch.7, pt. A(3)(b)
Pg: 3 of 5
Section 3583(e) identifies several § 3553(a) factors to be
considered by the sentencing court, including the nature and
treatment, and the sentencing range.
The section does not cite
imposed to . . . reflect the seriousness of the offense, to
promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).
court adequately identified a proper basis for it.
F.3d at 438.
We presume reasonable a sentence within the policy
“Only if we find the sentence unreasonable must we decide
whether it is plainly so.”
United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638,
plainly unreasonable sentence refers to a sentence with clear or
See Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439.
We reject Plumley’s claim that the district court imposed a
conditions of his supervised release.
According to Plumley,
when the court considered that factor, it disregarded Chapter
Seven and impermissibly relied on the need for punishment under
Pg: 4 of 5
identified in § 3583(e).
Chapter Seven does not bar the district court from considering
the seriousness of the offense; it merely limits the importance
of that factor in comparison with a defendant’s breach of trust.
See USSG ch.7, pt. A(3)(b).
We have held that “although a
predominately on . . . the need for the sentence to promote
respect for the law and provide just punishment, . . .
reference to such considerations does not render a revocation
relevant to, and considered in conjunction with, the enumerated
§ 3553(a) factors.”
Webb, 738 F.3d at 642.
impose its revocation sentence primarily to punish Plumley.
court considered several factors identified in § 3583(e).
sentence, which falls within the policy statement range.
Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438.
Because the district court did not impose an unreasonable
Pg: 5 of 5
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the material before 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?