United States v. Christina Funez , 686 F. App'x 235 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-4782
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    CHRISTINA RENE FUNEZ,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
    Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:11-cr-00007-NKM-2)
    Submitted: April 25, 2017                                         Decided: April 27, 2017
    Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Melissa J. Warner, LAW OFFICE OF MELISSA J. WARNER, Glen Allen, Virginia, for
    Appellant. Rick Mountcastle, Acting United States Attorney Western District of
    Virginia, Heather L. Carlton, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Christina Rene Funez appeals the district court’s judgment revoking her
    supervised release and sentencing her to 15 months’ imprisonment. Funez contends that
    her sentence—five months above the recommended range—is unreasonable because the
    court failed to adequately consider and address her arguments for a lesser sentence. 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 sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within the
    applicable statutory maximum and not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup,
    
    461 F.3d 433
    , 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). In determining whether a revocation sentence is
    plainly unreasonable, we first assess the sentence for unreasonableness, generally
    following the procedural and substantive considerations that are at issue in review of
    original sentences. 
    Id. at 438-39
    . 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). Only if we find the sentence
    unreasonable will we consider whether it is “plainly” so. 
    Id. at 657
    .
    A supervised release revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district
    court considered the policy statements contained in Chapter Seven of the Sentencing
    Guidelines and the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) (2012) factors applicable to revocation sentences.
    Crudup, 
    461 F.3d at 439
    . The district court also must provide a statement of reasons for
    2
    the sentence imposed, but that explanation “need not be as detailed or specific when
    imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a post-conviction sentence.”
    United States v. Thompson, 
    595 F.3d 544
    , 547 (4th Cir. 2010).               In exercising its
    sentencing discretion, the district court “should sanction primarily the defendant’s breach
    of trust, while taking into account, to a limited degree, the seriousness of the underlying
    violation and the criminal history of the violator.” Webb, 738 F.3d at 641.
    Funez assigns error to the district court’s explanation for its upward variant
    sentence.   Funez preserved her challenge to the court’s explanation “[b]y drawing
    arguments from § 3553 for a sentence different than the one ultimately imposed.” United
    States v. Lynn, 
    592 F.3d 572
    , 578 (4th Cir. 2010). In pronouncing sentence, the district
    court explicitly stated that it had considered Funez’s arguments. Furthermore, the district
    court clearly opined that the substantial leniency Funez received at her original
    sentencing, her repeated lying to her probation officer, and the need to afford adequate
    deterrence, particularly taking into account “[her] breach of trust . . . [in] failing to abide
    by the conditions of the court-ordered supervision,” warranted the upward variant
    sentence. We thus reject Funez’s challenge to the procedural reasonableness of her
    sentence.
    To the extent Funez challenges the substantive reasonableness of her sentence, a
    revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court states a proper basis
    for concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory
    maximum. Crudup, 
    461 F.3d at 440
    . As we have said, the district court identified
    appropriate grounds for the 15-month sentence. We thus conclude that the sentence is
    3
    substantively reasonable. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense
    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
    the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-4782

Citation Numbers: 686 F. App'x 235

Filed Date: 4/27/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023