US v. Joshua Brady
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00127-JAG-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-4621]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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)
March 23, 2017
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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.
United States Attorney, Michael C. Moore, Assistant
States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
The district court revoked Joshua Clayton Brady’s probation
For the following reasons,
We will affirm a revocation sentence if it falls within the
States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
136 S. Ct. 494 (2015).
Under this standard, we first consider
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
sentence is presumed substantively reasonable if it falls within
the policy statement range.
“Only if we find the sentence
unreasonable must we decide whether it is plainly so.”
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
undervalued his policy statement range, rejected the parties’
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
parties’ recommendation, and all the relevant § 3553(a) factors.
In light of those factors, the district court imposed a
We therefore affirm the district court’s
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
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?