UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4872
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUAN JARAMILLO-JIMENEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00342-CCE-1)
Submitted: April 28, 2014 Decided: May 13, 2014
Before KING, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Angela H. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Juan Jaramillo-Jimenez appeals the district court’s
judgment and commitment order entered after his supervised
release was revoked. The court sentenced Jaramillo-Jimenez to
serve eighteen months’ imprisonment consecutive to the sentence
he was serving at the time. He contends that the sentence was
substantively unreasonable. Finding no error, we affirm.
The district court has broad discretion when imposing
a sentence upon revoking a defendant’s supervised release.
United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). We
will affirm the sentence if it is within the statutory maximum
and is not “plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Crudup, 461
F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). We first consider whether the
sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Webb,
738 F.3d at 640. A revocation sentence is procedurally
reasonable if the district court considered the advisory policy
statement range and the § 3553(a) factors applicable to
supervised release revocation. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-40. A
sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court
stated a proper basis for concluding the defendant should
receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. Id.
at 440. Only if a sentence is found procedurally or
substantively unreasonable will we then decide whether the
sentence is plainly unreasonable. Id. at 439.
2
In ordering the sentence at issue, the district court
properly considered Jaramillo-Jimenez unwillingness to abide by
the terms of supervision, see United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d
652, 655 (4th Cir. 2007), and the need to deter further
violations of supervised release. See Webb, 738 F.3d at 642.
Because the court stated a proper basis for the consecutive
eighteen month sentence, we find no error.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment
and commitment order. 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