Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
No. 13-4935
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:06-cr-00232-REP-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
July 1, 2014
PER CURIAM:
John
sentence
Kelvin
imposed
release.
Ellis
upon
appeals
revocation
of
the
his
twenty-four-month
term
of
supervised
California,
386
U.S.
meritorious
grounds
738
for
(1967),
appeal,
stating
but
that
there
questioning
are
whether
no
the
Ellis
We affirm.
not
disturb
sentence
imposed
after
United
Thus, we
revocation
of
we
follow
generally
the
procedural
and
substantive
Id. at
438.
A sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district
court has considered the policy statements contained in Chapter
Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines and the applicable 18 U.S.C.
3553(a)
(2012)
factors,
id.
at
439,
and
has
adequately
sentence
in
sentence.
as
much
detail
Thompson,
595
as
when
F.3d
at
imposing
547.
the
original
sentence
is
for
maximum.
its
imposition
of
sentence
up
to
the
statutory
Id. at 439.
when
we
apply
the
reasonableness
review
to
sentences
Id. at
657.
Ellis
first
contends
that
his
supervised
release
history
originally
category
sentenced.
was
Under
determined
these
at
rare
the
time
he
was
circumstances,
the
the
defendant
was
originally
sentenced
to
the
term
of
supervision.
the
time
he
supervision.
was
His
originally
supervised
sentenced
release
to
term
violation,
of
namely
distribute
violation.
cocaine),
was
Grade
supervised
release
A Grade A
statement
imprisonment.
because
the
range
of
thirty-three
to
forty-one
maximum
term
was
two
years,
months
However,
18
U.S.C.
maximum
statutorily
imposable
for
Policy
authorized
maximum
upon
revocation
is
Statement
term
less
of
[w]here
imprisonment
than
range
the
minimum
the
that
is
of
the
Next,
Ellis
argues
that
his
sentence
was
plainly
statutory
sentencing
factor,
namely
the
need
to
term
of
imprisonment
after
considering
certain
18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(3)
3553(a)
factors
enumerated
in
3583(e)(3),
including the need to protect the public and to deter Ellis and
others
from
future
3553(a)(2)(B),
(C).
criminal
conduct.
However,
the
See
court
also
18
U.S.C.
explicitly
upon
3553(a)
factors
that
3583(e)).
are
not
enumerated
in
This
district
court
courts
has
reference
recently
to
the
held,
however,
3553(a)(2)(A)
that
sentencing
procedurally
unreasonable
when
those
factors
are
the
Id.
district
courts
consideration
of
an
We
therefore
conclude,
pursuant
to
Webb,
that
the
We therefore affirm.
Court
of
the
United
States
for
further
review.
If
Ellis
dispense
contentions
with
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
facts
and
the
materials
legal
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED