UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5191
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL B. MARTISKO,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00104-IMK-JES-3)
Submitted: June 2, 2011 Decided: June 16, 2011
Before SHEDD and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kristen Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, Martinsburg,
West Virginia; L. Richard Walker, Senior Litigator, Clarksburg,
West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United
States Attorney, Zelda E. Wesley, Assistant United States
Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael B. Martisko appeals the sixteen-month sentence
imposed following the district court’s revocation of supervised
release. On appeal, Martisko contends that the district court
imposed a plainly unreasonable sentence. Finding no 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). Thus, we
assume “a deferential appellate posture concerning issues of
fact and the exercise of [that] discretion,” United States v.
Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation
marks omitted), and will affirm unless the sentence is “plainly
unreasonable” in light of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006) factors. 461 F.3d at 437.
Our first step in reviewing a sentence imposed upon
revocation of supervised release 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
2
need not explain the sentence in as much detail as when imposing
the original sentence. Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547. In some
cases, “a district court’s reasons for imposing a within-range
sentence may be clear from context, including the court’s
statements to the defendant throughout the sentencing hearing.”
Id. (citation omitted). Unless the district court completely
fails to indicate any reasons for its sentence, “[w]e may be
hard-pressed to find any explanation for within-range,
revocation sentences insufficient given the amount of deference
we afford district courts when imposing these sentences.” Id.
A sentence 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 we determine
that the sentence is not unreasonable, we will affirm. Id. at
439.
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
revocation sentence is not unreasonable, let alone plainly so.
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