United States v. Joshua Brady , 682 F. App'x 250 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4621
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSHUA CLAYTON BRADY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:13-cr-00127-JAG-1)
Submitted: March 23, 2017 Decided: March 30, 2017
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant,
Appellate Attorney, Mary E. Maguire, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente,
United States Attorney, Michael C. Moore, Assistant United
States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
The district court revoked Joshua Clayton Brady’s probation
and sentenced him to 30 months’ imprisonment with 6 months’
supervised release. Brady appeals. For the following reasons,
we affirm.
We will affirm a revocation sentence if it falls within the
statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. United
States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
136 S. Ct. 494 (2015). Under this standard, we first consider
whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively
unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th
Cir. 2006). A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if
the district court considered the policy statements in Chapter
Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines Manual, the policy statement
range, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors identified in
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012). Padgett, 788 F.3d at 373. A
sentence is presumed substantively reasonable if it falls within
the policy statement range. Id. “Only if we find the sentence
unreasonable must we decide whether it is plainly so.” United
States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
On appeal, Brady argues that the district court imposed a
plainly unreasonable sentence because the district court
undervalued his policy statement range, rejected the parties’
2
recommended sentence without adequate explanation, and imposed a
sentence greater than necessary by giving insufficient weight to
certain § 3553(a) factors. The record, however, shows that the
district court evaluated the policy statement range, the
parties’ recommendation, and all the relevant § 3553(a) factors.
In light of those factors, the district court imposed a
reasonable sentence. We therefore affirm the district court’s
order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the material
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3