United States v. Boltz , 355 F. App'x 704 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-5158
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARL JAMES BOLTZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:04-cr-00187-F-1)
Submitted: September 28, 2009 Decided: December 8, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne
M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carl James Boltz appeals his twenty-four-month
sentence imposed on revocation of supervised release. We
affirm.
On appeal, Boltz argues that the sentence imposed is
plainly unreasonable because the district court failed to
consider whether community-based drug treatment programs would
have provided Boltz with needed treatment. Boltz does not
challenge the district court’s decision to revoke his supervised
release or its guidelines calculations. The Government responds
that the district court’s sentence is not unreasonable.
In United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th
Cir. 2006), we held that “revocation sentences should be
reviewed to determine whether they are ‘plainly unreasonable’
with regard to those [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) (2006) factors
applicable to supervised release revocation sentences.”
Although the district court must consider the Chapter Seven
policy statements and the applicable requirements of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 3553(a), 3583(e) (2006), “the court ultimately has broad
discretion to revoke its previous sentence and impose a term of
imprisonment up to the statutory maximum.” Crudup, 461 F.3d at
439 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A
sentencing court must provide a “statement of reasons for the
sentence imposed,” United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 657
2
(4th Cir. 2007) (probation revocation), but the court need not
“robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every subsection,” or
“explicitly discuss every § 3553(a) factor on the record.”
United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006).
Our review of the record in this case convinces us
that the district court adequately explained its reasons for the
sentencing and we find that the sentence is neither procedurally
nor substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Finley,
531 F.3d 288, 297 (4th Cir. 2008) (applying Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, ___, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007), in
reviewing a sentence to determine if it is plainly
unreasonable).
We therefore affirm Boltz’s sentence. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3