UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4543
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEREMY KISER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin,
Chief District Judge. (2:06-cr-00151-1)
Submitted: December 29, 2010 Decided: January 18, 2011
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. R. Booth
Goodwin, II, United States Attorney, Lisa G. Johnston, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeremy Kiser appeals the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to
twenty-four months in prison. Kiser argues that his sentence is
plainly unreasonable. We affirm.
This court will affirm a sentence imposed after
revocation of supervised release if it is within the applicable
statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. United
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). We
first assess the sentence for reasonableness, “follow[ing]
generally the procedural and substantive considerations that we
employ in our review of original sentences, . . . with some
necessary modifications to take into account the unique nature
of supervised release revocation sentences.” Id. at 438-39.
Only if a sentence is found procedurally or
substantively unreasonable will we “decide whether the sentence
is plainly unreasonable.” Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439 (emphasis
omitted). Although the district court must consider the
Sentencing Guidelines Chapter 7 policy statements and the
requirements of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 3553(a), 3583 (West 2000 & Supp.
2009), “the [district] court ultimately has broad discretion to
revoke its previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment
up to the statutory maximum.” Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439 (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted).
2
Kiser argues that the district court’s sentence is
plainly unreasonable because it fails to adequately further the
goals of supervised release. Our review of the record leads us
to conclude that the district court carefully evaluated Kiser’s
failure to meaningfully cooperate with his probation officer and
the court during his period of supervised release. We
accordingly conclude that the sentence imposed by the district
court is not plainly unreasonable, and 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 the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3