United States v. Demetrius Wright , 676 F. App'x 179 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4314
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEMETRIUS WRIGHT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District
Judge. (3:07-cr-00424-JAG-1)
Submitted: December 28, 2016 Decided: February 9, 2017
Before TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt,
Carolyn V. Grady, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney,
Jessica D. Aber, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Demetrius Wright appeals his 36-month sentence, which the
district court imposed after revoking Wright’s supervised release.
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
revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and not
plainly unreasonable. United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 494 (2015). We first consider
whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively
unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th
Cir. 2006). In making this inquiry, “we strike a more deferential
appellate posture than we do when reviewing original sentences.”
Padgett, 788 F.3d at 373 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Only
if we find the sentence unreasonable must we decide if it is
plainly so.” Webb, 738 F.3d at 640 (internal quotation marks
omitted). While a district court must explain a revocation
sentence, the court “need not be as detailed or specific when
imposing a revocation sentence.” United States v. Thompson, 595
F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).
We reject Wright’s claims that the district court did not
meaningfully consider the revocation range of 6 to 12 months’
imprisonment, gave undue weight to general deterrence, and imposed
2
a sentence that created unwarranted sentencing disparities. The
court considered the policy-statement range and articulated
reasons for varying upward from that range. The district court’s
reasoning did not unduly focus on general deterrence; instead, the
court also discussed other applicable sentencing factors.
Finally, we reject Wright’s claim that he received a
disproportionately long sentence compared to offenders who
committed Grade A or B release violations. Such a comparison lacks
meaning. See United States v. Chandia, 675 F.3d 329, 342 (4th
Cir. 2012).
Having rejected Wright’s claims, we also conclude that the
district court imposed a procedurally and substantively reasonable
sentence. Thus, we affirm. 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