US v. Joshua Brady
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00127-JAG-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000052202].. [16-4621]
Appeal: 16-4621
Doc: 24
Filed: 03/30/2017
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4621
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSHUA CLAYTON BRADY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:13-cr-00127-JAG-1)
Submitted:
March 23, 2017
Decided:
March 30, 2017
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L.
Appellate Attorney, Mary E. Maguire, Assistant Federal
Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
Dana J.
United States Attorney, Michael C. Moore, Assistant
States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Bryant,
Public
Boente,
United
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-4621
Doc: 24
Filed: 03/30/2017
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
The district court revoked Joshua Clayton Brady’s probation
and
sentenced
him
to
supervised release.
30
months’
imprisonment
Brady appeals.
with
6
months’
For the following reasons,
we affirm.
We will affirm a revocation sentence if it falls within the
statutory
maximum
and
is
not
plainly
unreasonable.
United
States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
136 S. Ct. 494 (2015).
whether
the
unreasonable.
Cir. 2006).
Under this standard, we first consider
sentence
is
procedurally
or
substantively
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th
A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if
the district court considered the policy statements in Chapter
Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines Manual, the policy statement
range, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors identified in
18
U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)
(2012).
Padgett,
788
F.3d
at
373.
A
sentence is presumed substantively reasonable if it falls within
the policy statement range.
Id.
“Only if we find the sentence
unreasonable must we decide whether it is plainly so.”
United
States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
On appeal, Brady argues that the district court imposed a
plainly
unreasonable
sentence
because
the
district
court
undervalued his policy statement range, rejected the parties’
2
Appeal: 16-4621
Doc: 24
Filed: 03/30/2017
Pg: 3 of 3
recommended sentence without adequate explanation, and imposed a
sentence greater than necessary by giving insufficient weight to
certain § 3553(a) factors.
The record, however, shows that the
district
the
court
evaluated
policy
statement
range,
the
parties’ recommendation, and all the relevant § 3553(a) factors.
In light of those factors, the district court imposed a
reasonable sentence.
order.
legal
before
We therefore affirm the district court’s
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
material
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3
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?