UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4410
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MARCUS PULLEY,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:03-cr-00276-FL-1)
Submitted: October 13, 2010 Decided: January 24, 2011
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Tobin W. Lathan, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Pulley appeals the district court’s imposition
of a twenty―four—month sentence following revocation of his
supervised release. On appeal, Pulley contends that the
district court imposed a plainly unreasonable sentence upon
revocation, given the nature of his violations and the short
time he had to receive drug treatment following his release from
prison. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
The district court has broad discretion to impose a
sentence upon revoking a defendant’s supervised release. United
States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). We will
affirm unless the sentence is “plainly unreasonable” in light of
the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. United
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006).
Our first step is to “decide whether the sentence is
unreasonable.” Id. at 438. In doing so, “we follow generally
the procedural and substantive considerations” employed in
reviewing original sentences. Id. A sentence is procedurally
reasonable if the district court has considered the policy
statements contained in Chapter 7 of the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual and the applicable § 3553(a) factors, id. at
439, and has adequately explained the sentence chosen, though it
need not explain the sentence in as much detail as when imposing
the original sentence. Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547. A sentence
2
is substantively reasonable if the district court states a
proper basis for its imposition of a sentence up to the
statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. If, after
considering the above, we determine that the sentence is not
unreasonable, we will affirm. Id. at 439.
Our review of the record on appeal leads us to
conclude that the district court’s sentence is procedurally and
substantively reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment
of the district court. 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