Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 13-4214
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00085-JAG-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Stephen
Tucciarone
appeals
the
district
courts
that
there
questioning
are
whether
no
the
meritorious
district
issues
for
erred
by
court
appeal
but
imposing
We affirm.
release
if
it
is
within
the
applicable
statutory
In determining whether a
is
unreasonable[,]
follow[ing]
generally
the
Id. at 438.
But we
fact
and
the
exercise
of
discretion
652,
656
(4th
Cir.
than
reasonableness
2007)
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted).
A
the
revocation
district
court
sentence
properly
is
procedurally
calculates
the
reasonable
U.S.
if
Sentencing
and
explains
policy
the
statements
factors.
sentence
and
adequately,
applicable
18
after
U.S.C.
considering
3553(a)
the
(2006)
factors]
does
not
render
revocation
sentence
Only if
procedurally
unreasonable.
Rather,
counsel
questions
its
appropriately
characteristics
weigh
and
its
Tucciarones
reliance
on
history
factors,
and
including
the
offenses,
that
Crudup,
461
at
factors
of
F.3d
are
439
3553(a)
not
specified
([N]ot
can
be
revocation sentence.).
all
the
considered
in
3583(e).
original
[in
See
sentencing
imposing]
because
Tucciarone
breached
the
courts
trust.
in
fact,
the
principal
basis
on
which
the
Guidelines
United States
v. Bennett, 698 F.3d 194, 202 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133
S. Ct. 1506 (2013).
to
the
statutory
maximum,
we
conclude
that
Tucciarones
Crudup,
We
therefore
affirm
the
district
courts
judgment.
but
counsel
that
such
petition
would
be
contentions
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED