US v. Dennis Cunningham, III
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00599-JKB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [17-4263]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
DENNIS CUNNINGHAM, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00599-JKB-1)
Submitted: October 20, 2017
Decided: October 27, 2017
Before TRAXLER, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Meghan Skelton, Appellate Attorney, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellant. Stephen M. Schenning, Acting United States Attorney, Ayn B.
Ducao, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Dennis Cunningham, III, appeals from the district court's judgment revoking his
supervised release and sentencing him to 21 months’ imprisonment.
Cunningham argues that this sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation
of supervised release.” United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). We
will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release “if it is within the
statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.”
Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). In reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we “first
decide whether the sentence is unreasonable . . . follow[ing] generally the procedural and
substantive considerations that we employ in our review of original sentences.” United
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). A supervised release revocation
sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court states a proper basis for
concluding the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory
See Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.
A sentence within the advisory policy
statement range is presumed reasonable. United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th
Cir. 2015). Only if a sentence is found procedurally or substantively unreasonable will
we “then decide whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable.” Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439.
A sentence is plainly unreasonable if it is clearly or obviously unreasonable. Id.
Although Cunningham’s 21-month revocation sentence is at the low end of the
advisory policy statement range, he contends that sentence is substantively unreasonable
because the district court improperly placed controlling weight on the sentencing factor
Pg: 3 of 3
of protecting the public; relied on disputed facts relating to the underlying violation
conduct; failed to consider that he had been punished by the Maryland courts for some of
the underlying violation conduct; and ignored the fact that, due to a partially suspended
sentence, he remained under the supervision of the Maryland courts.
Cunningham’s assertion, however, the record makes clear that in sentencing him at the
low end of the advisory range, the district court properly considered the facts, all of the
appropriate sentencing factors, and Cunningham’s arguments in mitigation. We therefore
conclude that the revocation sentence is reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment.
We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials 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?