United States v. Wright

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4989

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

STEFFEN V. WRIGHT,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (5:03-cr-00052-2)

Submitted: April 10, 2009 Decided: April 21, 2009

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T.
Miller, United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United
States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Steffen V. Wright appeals his sentence to eleven

months in prison and forty-eight months of supervised release

imposed in the district court’s judgment revoking supervised

release. On appeal, Wright does not challenge the district

court’s finding that he violated the conditions of his

supervised release, but he contends that his eleven-month prison

sentence is plainly unreasonable because it does not further the

purposes of supervised release. We affirm.

We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of

supervised release if it is within the prescribed statutory

range and not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup,

461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). We first consider whether

the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Id.

at 438. While a district court must consider the Chapter 7

policy statements, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Ch. 7, Pt.

B (2007), and the statutory requirements and factors applicable

to revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e)

(2006), the district court ultimately has broad discretion to

revoke the previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment

up to the statutory maximum. Id. at 438-39. Only if we find

the sentence procedurally or substantively unreasonable, must we

decide whether it is “plainly” unreasonable. Id. at 439.

2
We have reviewed the record and find Wright’s sentence

is both procedurally and substantively reasonable, and within

the prescribed statutory range. In imposing its sentence, the

district court considered Wright’s policy statement range under

USSG § 7B1.4 and the relevant statutory requirements and

factors, and the court reasonably determined a prison sentence

at the high end of the policy statement range, followed by a new

supervised release term, was appropriate in this case.

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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED