Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Unpublished
Unpublished
Unpublished
No. 15-4221
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00269-FL-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Damon
Demont
Nicholson
appeals
the
24-month
sentence
Finding no
district
court
has
broad
discretion
when
sentence
that
is
within
the
imposing
United States
We will affirm a
prescribed
statutory
the
sentence
is
procedurally
or
substantively
unreasonable,
Id. at 438.
fact
and
the
exercise
of
discretion
than
reasonableness
478
(internal
F.3d
omitted).
652,
656
(4th
Cir.
2007)
marks
quotation
supervised
release
revocation
Id. at 657.
sentence
is
procedurally
statements
in
the
Sentencing
Guidelines
and
the
18
U.S.C.
at
439,
and
provided
sufficient
explanation
for
the
appeal,
Nicholson
asserts
that
the
Id.
district
court
for
the
upward
variant
sentence
it
imposed.
We
mitigation.
The
district
court
engaged
in
an
extensive
presentedand
that
Nicholson
recognized,
continued
services
probation
statements
poor
and
the
and
court
contends
expressed
decision-making
substance
officer
had
demonstrate
abuse
were
refusal
of
to
district
of
for
for
The
Nicholsons
mental
both
obtain
bases
addressed.
for,
treatment,
the
not
concern
and
endeavored
that
consideredthe
which
him.
court
health
the
These
rejected
afforded
greater
consideration,
because
Nicholson
had
The
courts
its
view
statements
that
prior
sentence
to
within
sentencing
the
Nicholson
calculated
reflect
policy
statement
Specifically,
selected
sentence
need
not
be
couched
in
the
precise
tied
to
[the
focus
was
on
defendants]
particular
situation.
appropriate
4
sentencing
considerations,
history
and
3553(a)(1), 3583(e).
of
the
relevant
proceedings.
See
18
U.S.C.
policy
See
characteristics.
18
statements
U.S.C.
applicable
in
3553(a)(4)(B).
revocation
Because
the
sentence
particular
to
appropriate
circumstances
of
this
sentencing
case,
we
factors
and
the
conclude
that
the
with
contentions
are
we
oral
affirm
argument
adequately
the
revocation
because
presented
in
the
the
judgment.
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED