United States v. Nathane Blackmon , 672 F. App'x 314 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NATHANE JOHN BLACKMON, a/k/a Nathan Blackmon,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:11-cr-00231-F-2)
Submitted: December 22, 2016 Decided: January 9, 2017
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, Acting United
States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Phillip A. Rubin,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nathane John Blackmon appeals the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 24 months’
imprisonment. Finding no reversible error, 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 is not ‘plainly unreasonable.’” Id. (quoting United
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006)). “When
reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable,
we must first determine whether it is unreasonable at all.”
United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010). A
revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district
court adequately explains the sentence after considering the
Sentencing Guidelines’ Chapter Seven policy statements and the
applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e) (2012); Thompson, 595 F.3d at 546-47.
Blackmon claims that his sentence is procedurally
unreasonable because the district court failed to explain
adequately its reasons for imposing a 24-month sentence, which
equaled the statutory maximum and exceeded the applicable
Sentencing Guidelines’ advisory policy statement range. Having
reviewed the record, we find that the district court’s
2
explanation of this sentence, although brief, was sufficient
under the circumstances. See Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547(discussing standard). We therefore conclude that Blackmon’s
sentence is not plainly unreasonable.
Accordingly, we 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
3