Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 13-4672
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:12-cr-00282-PJM-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
William Maurice Johnson appeals the district courts
judgment
revoking
nine-month
prison
his
supervised
term.
Johnson
release
challenges
district
upon
court
revoking
has
a
and
broad
imposing
this
sentence,
We affirm.
discretion
defendants
to
impose
supervised
release.
United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).
We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised
release if it is within the applicable statutory maximum and not
plainly unreasonable.
437,
439-40
(4th
Cir.
2006).
In
determining
whether
for
unreasonableness,
follow[ing]
generally
the
supervised
reasonable
Id. at 438.
release
if
the
revocation
district
court
sentence
is
considered
the
18
U.S.C.
3553(a)
(2012)
factors
it
is
permitted
to
18 U.S.C.
Although a district
in
as
much
detail
as
2
when
it
imposes
an
original
imposed.
quotation
marks
Thompson,
omitted).
595
The
F.3d
at
reasons
547
(internal
articulated
by
the
to
[ 3553(a)]
factor
and
appropriate
[were]
particular situation.
clearly
for
tied
consideration
to
[the
under
defendants]
district
defendant
court
should
statutory maximum.
is
found
then
stated
receive
Id. at 439.
the
whether
or
basis
sentence
substantively
the
sentence
is
for
concluding
imposed,
up
to
the
the
Only if a sentence
unreasonable
plainly
will
we
unreasonable.
or obviously unreasonable.
In
proper
procedurally
decide
this
nine-month
prison
statutory
maximum.
case,
Id.
there
sentence
18
is
does
U.S.C.
no
dispute
that
not
exceed
the
3559(a),
Johnsons
applicable
3583(e)(3)
(2012).
On
appeal,
Johnson
unreasonable
contends
because
the
that
the
district
sentence
court
erred
is
in
plainly
failing
to
failing
to
calculate
the
advisory
policy
statement
Johnson
he
did
not
object
to
the
alleged
Cir.
2007).
demonstrate
(2) the
that
error
substantial
To
(1)
was
the
plain;
rights.
establish
plain
district
and
(3)
Henderson
v.
court
the
error,
Johnson
committed
error
United
an
must
error;
affected
States,
133
his
S. Ct.
defendant
at
supervised
release
revocation
Fed. R. Crim. P.
the
defendant
has
been
issued
personal
invitation
to
to
without
Johnson
as
to
deciding
that
whether
he
the
had
district
anything
courts
new
or
an
assessment
substantial rights.
of
whether
the
error
affected
Johnsons
at
999
(When . . . the
possibility
See Cole,
remains
that
an
than
that
received, . . . fairness
and
integrity
of
the
Next,
Johnson
argues
that
the
district
court
28(a)(8)(A)
([T]he
[appellants]
argument . . . must
the
appellant
relies.),
we
deem
it
waived.
Wahi
v.
Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir.
2009).
Finally, we reject as without merit Johnsons argument
that
the
nine-month
sentence
is
unreasonable
because
the
461
F.3d
at
439.
Further,
in
rejecting
counsels
for
the
sentence
3553(a)(1), (2)(B).
to
afford
deterrence.
18
U.S.C.
prior
lenient
treatment.
See
USSG
Ch.
7,
Pt.
A,
its
conclude
that
rationale
for
the
district
imposing
the
court
adequately
nine-month
prison
Based
not
unreasonable.
Therefore,
we
conclude
that
Johnsons
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
and
materials
legal
before
contentions
this
court
are
and