Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Unpublished
Unpublished
No. 15-4397
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:07-cr-00022-F-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
June 9, 2016
PER CURIAM:
Arjay Orlando Brown appeals the district courts judgment
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 35 months
imprisonment.
district
court
has
broad
discretion
We affirm.
when
imposing
United States
We will affirm a
the
unreasonable.
applicable
plainly
and
not
plainly
unreasonable,
unreasonableness,
substantive
maximum
statutory
generally
considerations
original sentences.
we
first
assess
following
that
are
Id. at 43839.
at
the
the
issue
sentence
procedural
in
review
for
and
of
Only
if
we
find
the
sentence
supervised
release
reasonable
if
the
statements
contained
unreasonable
we
consider
Id. at 657.
revocation
district
in
will
court
Chapter
sentence
is
procedurally
considered
Seven
of
the
the
policy
Sentencing
The district
but
that
explanation
need
not
be
as
detailed
or
post-conviction
sentence.
United
States
v.
sanction
primarily
the
defendants
breach
of
trust,
the
underlying
violator.
violation
and
the
criminal
history
of
the
The
offense.
revocation
sentence
procedurally
unreasonable
when
those
first
assigns
Id. at 642.
error
to
the
district
courts
Brown preserved
2010).
Browns argument fails on this record.
After announcing
violations
of
the
conditions
of
his
release,
which
it
was
primarily
4
on
appropriate
sentencing
considerations,
including
Browns
history
and
characteristics
And
ongoing
violative
conduct
amounted
to
significant
breach of the trust and leniency the court had extended Brown at
his prior revocation hearing.
next
consideration
3583(e).
of
We
assigns
one
review
of
reversible
the
this
error
3553(a)
argument
to
factors
for
plain
the
courts
excluded
error
from
because
United States
To establish plain
error, Brown must show (1) that the district court erred, (2)
that the error is clear or obvious, and (3) that the error
affected his substantial rights, meaning that it affected the
outcome of the district court proceedings.
64041 (internal quotation marks omitted).
and
will
deny
relief
unless
the . . . error
seriously
proceedings.
marks omitted).
Despite Browns argument to the contrary, we conclude that
the disfavored factor cited here the need for the sentence to
promote respect for the law was not a focal point for the
courts
sentencing
decision.
Indeed,
it
was
mentioned
only
how
Browns
chronic
and
repeated
violations
of
his
We
thus discern no error, let alone plain error, arising from the
courts mention of the need for the sentence to promote respect
for the law.
Finally, there is Browns assertion that his sentence is
substantively unreasonable because, when weighed against certain
aspects of Browns personal circumstances, it is greater than
necessary to comply with the goals of 3553(a).
sentence
is
substantively
reasonable
if
the
A revocation
district
court
the
sentence
imposed,
appropriate
sentence.
up
to
the
statutory
maximum.
We
substantively reasonable.
thus
for
the
conclude
35month,
that
the
statutory
sentence
is
statutory
maximum
term
of
imprisonment
was
substantively
his
supervised
release[,]
despite
several
extensions
of
circumstances
in
this
case,
as
this
is
outside
our
2011)
(recognizing
that
district
courts
have
extremely
therefore
with
contentions
are
affirm
oral
the
argument
adequately
district
courts
because
presented
in
the
the
judgment.
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED