Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 14-4170
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:09-cr-00089-F-1)
Submitted:
Before GREGORY
Circuit Judge.
and
DIAZ,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
DAVIS,
Senior
PER CURIAM:
Shawn
sentence
Patrick
imposed
following
supervised release.
bases
for
his
Greene
appeals
the
the
revocation
twenty-four-month
of
his
term
of
contention
substantively unreasonable.
that
this
sentence
is
plainly
Webb,
738
F.3d
638,
640
(4th
Cir.
United States
2013).
revocation
not
plainly
unreasonable
will
be
affirmed
on
appeal.
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437-38 (4th Cir. 2006).
In
determining
whether
revocation
sentence
is
plainly
the
procedural
and
substantive
considerations
Id. at
438.
A
revocation
sentence
is
procedurally
reasonable
if
U.S.C.
3553(a)
3583(e) (2012).
(2012)
factors
Id. at 439.
identified
in
18
U.S.C.
be
as
detailed
sentence.
Cir.
or
specific
as
is
required
for
an
original
2010).
sentence
is
substantively
reasonable
if
the
at 440.
If, after considering the above, we decide that the
sentence is reasonable, we will affirm.
find
the
sentence
to
be
Id. at 439.
procedurally
or
Only if we
substantively
these
principles,
we
readily
Id.
conclude
that
Our review
policy
statement
range
of
five
to
eleven
months
arguments
regarding
the
appropriate
sentence
to
be
imposed.
Furthermore,
the
district
court
drew
upon
the
record
makes
patently
clear
3
that,
despite
the
district
courts
decision
sentence
in
case.
this
to
We
impose
do
not
the
find
statutory
persuasive
maximum
Greenes
manage
his
marijuana
of
substantively
addiction
and
his
conduct
did
not
statutory
maximum
term
of
imprisonment
reasonable,
given
that
the
district
was
court
conditions
of
his
supervised
release[,]
despite
To the contrary,
his
addiction
without
seeking
an
additional
term
of
simply
would
not
do,
thus
confirming
the
necessity
This
of
training.
of
([T]he
his
supervised
sentence
imposed
release,
upon
Crudup,
revocation
461
F.3d
[is]
at
intended
438
to
U.S.
Sentencing
Guidelines
Manual
ch.
7,
pt.
A,
with
contentions
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED