United States v. Longus

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4534
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARQUEIS D. LONGUS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:04-cr-00254-REP-1)
Submitted: October 20, 2008 Decided: November 24, 2008
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Frances H.
Pratt, Paul G. Gill, Assistant Federal Public Defenders,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United
States Attorney, Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United
States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marqueis D. Longus appeals the district court’s
judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a sentence
of twenty-four months’ imprisonment. Longus alleges that his
sentence is plainly unreasonable. For the following reasons, we
affirm.
We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of
supervised release if it is not plainly unreasonable. United
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). The
sentence first must be assessed for reasonableness, “follow[ing]
generally the procedural and substantive considerations that we
employ in our review of original sentences[,] . . . with some
necessary modifications to take into account the unique nature
of supervised release revocation sentences.” Id. at 438-39; see
United States v. Finley, 531 F.3d 288, 294 (4th Cir. 2008) (“In
applying the ‘plainly unreasonable’ standard, we first
determine, using the instructions given in Gall [v. United
States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007)], whether a sentence is
‘unreasonable.’”).
We affirm a sentence that is not unreasonable.
Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. Only if a sentence is found
procedurally or substantively unreasonable will we “decide
2
whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable.” * Id.; see Finley,
531 F.3d at 294. Although the district court must consider the
Chapter 7 policy statements and the requirements of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 3553(a), 3583 (2006), “the [district] 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 citations omitted).
We have thoroughly reviewed Longus’ sentence and find
it to be procedurally and substantively reasonable. Based on
this conclusion, “it necessarily follows that” Longus’ sentence
is not “plainly unreasonable.” Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440; see
Finley, 531 F.3d at 297.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment
revoking Longus’ supervised release and imposing a twenty-four
month prison term. 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
*
“[F]or purposes of determining whether an unreasonable
sentence is plainly unreasonable, ‘plain’ is synonymous with
‘clear’ or, equivalently, ‘obvious.’” Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439(internal quotation marks, citation, and alteration omitted).
3