United States v. Joshua Neale , 596 F. App'x 239 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4610
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSHUA RAY NEALE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski,
District Judge. (5:02-cr-30020-MFU-17)
Submitted: February 27, 2015 Decided: March 6, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine
Lee, Research and Writing Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney,
Elizabeth G. Wright, Assistant United States Attorney,
Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joshua Ray Neale appeals the 23-month sentence imposed
following the revocation of his supervised release term. On
appeal, Neale contends that his sentence was plainly
unreasonable because it was ordered to run consecutively to his
state sentence. Finding no error, 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 revocation sentence that is within the prescribed
statutory range and not plainly unreasonable. United States v.
Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). We first consider
whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively
unreasonable, employing the same general considerations applied
during review of original sentences. Id. at 438. In this
initial inquiry, we “take[] a more deferential appellate posture
concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than
reasonableness review for guidelines sentences.” United
States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal
quotation marks omitted). If we find the sentence unreasonable,
we must then determine whether it is “plainly” so. Id. at 657.
A supervised release revocation sentence is procedurally
reasonable if the district court considered the Sentencing
Guidelines’ Chapter Seven advisory policy statements and the 18
2
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors applicable to the supervised
release revocation context, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012);
Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439, and provided sufficient explanation for
the sentence imposed, see United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d
544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). A revocation sentence is
substantively reasonable if the district court stated a proper
basis for concluding the defendant should receive the sentence
imposed. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.
On appeal, Neale asserts that his sentence is plainly
unreasonable because the court ordered that it be served
consecutively to his state court sentence. We find this
argument unpersuasive. Upon our review, we find the district
court’s decision to order a consecutive revocation sentence to
be reasonable. See USSG § 7B1.3(f), p.s.; United States v.
Johnson, 640 F.3d 195, 208 (6th Cir. 2011). To the extent that
Neale otherwise challenges the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of his sentence, we find such contention to be
lacking in merit. The court considered the Chapter Seven policy
statements and the proper factors under § 3553(a), tailored the
factors to Neale’s individual circumstances, and more than
adequately explained its proper basis for the sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4