UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4856
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARCUS LORENZO GASKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:03-cr-00015-F-1)
Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: July 28, 2014
Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Lorenzo Gaskins appeals from the district
court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing
him to six months in prison, followed by a new two-year term of
supervised release. Although Gaskins does not challenge the
district court’s revocation decision or his six-month sentence,
he asserts that the additional two-year supervised release term
was greater than necessary and should be vacated. Finding no
error, we affirm.
We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of
supervised release if it is within the governing statutory range
and not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d
433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). “When reviewing whether a
revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we must first
determine whether it is unreasonable at all.” United States v.
Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010); see United States
v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). Only if this
court finds the sentence unreasonable must the court decide
whether it is “plainly” so. Moulden, 478 F.3d at 657.
Gaskins does not dispute that the district court was
authorized by law to impose upon him an additional supervised
release term. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b), (h) (2012). Instead,
Gaskins asserts only that the additional supervised release term
rendered the sentence substantively unreasonable because he has
2
“taken several significant steps to challenge the root cause of
his criminal conduct[,]” and has “added additional stabilizing
influences into his life[.]” We have reviewed the relevant
portions of the district court record and have considered the
parties’ arguments and find no reversible error in the district
court’s imposition of the additional supervised release term.
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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3