United States v. Steven Omelian , 672 F. App'x 289 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4469
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
STEVEN OMELIAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:12-cr-00007-RLV-DCK-1)
Submitted: December 7, 2016 Decided: January 4, 2017
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jennifer Coulter, COULTER LAW OFFICE, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney,
Anthony J. Enright, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steven Omelian pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by
a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012). The
district court sentenced Omelian to 14 months of imprisonment,
followed by 2 years of supervised release. Following Omelian’s
release from incarceration, the district court twice revoked his
supervised release for various violations. After Omelian was
released from custody the third time, the district court again
revoked Omelian’s supervised release and sentenced him above the
advisory Guidelines range to 24 months of imprisonment without
imposing a further term of supervised release. Omelian appeals,
arguing that the sentence is plainly unreasonable. Finding no
error, we affirm.
Omelian contends that the court failed to adequately
explain the revocation sentence and it is therefore procedurally
unreasonable. We review a sentence imposed as a result of a
supervised release violation to determine whether the sentence
is plainly unreasonable. United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d
370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015). The first step in this analysis is a
determination of whether the sentence is unreasonable; in making
this determination, we follow the procedural and substantive
considerations employed in reviewing original sentences. United
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). Although a
district court must consider the policy statements in Chapter
2
Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines along with the statutory
factors, “the court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke
its previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to
the statutory maximum.” Id. at 439 (internal quotation marks
omitted). If a sentence imposed after a revocation is not
unreasonable, we will not proceed to the second prong of the
analysis — whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. Id. at
438-39.
A district court must adequately explain a revocation
sentence, “whether the district court imposes an above, below,
or within-Guidelines sentence.” United States v. Thompson, 595
F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks
omitted). “A court need not be as detailed or specific when
imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a
post-conviction sentence, but it still must provide a statement
of reasons for the sentence imposed.” Id. (internal quotation
marks omitted). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and
conclude that the district court sufficiently explained the
chosen sentence and the sentence is not unreasonable. It
follows, therefore, that the sentence is not is plainly
unreasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4