United States v. Wilmer Campos-Mejia, 4th Cir. (2015)

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4133
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILMER NAHUN CAMPOS-MEJIA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:10-cr-00292-HEH-1)
Submitted:
September 10, 2015
Decided:
September 18, 2015
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Geremy C. Kamens, Acting Federal Public Defender, Frances H.

Pratt, Carolyn V. Grady, Assistant Federal Public Defenders,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
Dana J. Boente, United
States Attorney, S. David Schiller, Assistant United States
Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wilmer
Nahun
Campos-Mejia
appeals
the
district
courts
order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 24

months
imprisonment,
statement range.
above
the
Sentencing
Guidelines
policy
Campos-Mejia contends that his sentence is
plainly unreasonable.
Specifically, he claims that his sentence
is procedurally unreasonable because the district court relied

on 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2012) sentencing factors not enumerated
in the list of factors in 18 U.S.C. 3853(e) (2012) to be
considered when imposing a revocation sentence.
Campos-Mejia
also claims that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable in

light of the Governments suggestion that increased punishment
was
appropriate
in
order
to
ensure
he
was
punished
for
the
crimes underlying the revocation of his supervised release.
We
affirm.
[T]he sentencing court retains broad discretion to impose
a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum.
United
States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015) (ellipsis
and internal quotation marks omitted).
We will not disturb a
district courts revocation sentence unless it falls outside the

statutory maximum or is otherwise plainly unreasonable.
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Id.
[T]he [same] procedural
and substantive considerations that guide our review of original

sentences inform our review of revocation sentences as well.
2
Id.
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted).
However,
for
this
initial inquiry, [i]n determining whether a revocation sentence

is unreasonable, we strike a more deferential appellate posture
than we do when reviewing original sentences.
Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted).

A
revocation
sentence
is
procedurally
reasonable
if
the
district court considered the advisory policy statement range

and
the
3553(a)
revocation.
applicable
to
supervised
release
Id.; United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438-40
(4th Cir. 2006).

district
factors
court
A sentence is substantively reasonable if the

stated
defendant
should
statutory
maximum.
proper
receive
the
Crudup,
basis
sentence
461
F.3d
for
concluding
imposed,
at
440.
up
to
Only
the
the
if
revocation sentence is unreasonable must we assess whether it is

plainly so.
Padgett, 788 F.3d at 373.
We conclude that Campos-Mejias challenge to the procedural

reasonableness of his sentence based on the district courts
reference
to
unenumerated
3553(a)
factors
lacks
merit.
Although the district court referenced unenumerated factors, it

does
not
appear
from
court
the
determining
primarily
See United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 641-42 (4th

to
when
the
sentence.
Moreover,
them
that
or
2013).
on
record
considered
Cir.
relied
the
extent
the
Campos-Mejias
court
considered
unenumerated factors, we conclude that they were relevant to,

3
and considered in conjunction with, the enumerated 3553(a)

factors and, therefore, that reference to the omitted factors
did
not
render
unreasonable.
We
Campos-Mejias
sentence
procedurally
Id. at 642.
likewise
conclude
that
Campos-Mejias
contentions
regarding the Governments assertions at his revocation hearing

are meritless.
the
Imposing a sentence for the purpose of punishing
underlying
breaking
conduct
the
courts
unreasonableness.
pt.
A(3)(b)
as
new
trust,
offense,
might
rather
than
constitute
for
plain
See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ch. 7,
(2014);
United
States
v.
Simtob,
485
F.3d
1063-64 (9th Cir. 2007); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 437-38.
1058,
However,
even if the Governments reasoning at sentencing were taken to

imply that Campos-Mejia should be sentenced for a new offense,
we cannot attribute this reasoning to the district court on the
record before us.
See United States v. Bell, 667 F.3d 431, 447-
48 (4th Cir. 2011).
On the contrary, the record discloses that
the district court based the sentence it imposed on the advisory

policy statements and the factors enumerated in 3583(e).
Because we conclude that Campos-Mejias revocation sentence
is
not
procedurally
unreasonable
and
because
he
does
not
challenge its substantive reasonableness, it is unnecessary to

determine
whether
the
Padgett, 788 F.3d at 373.
sentence
is
plainly
unreasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment

4
of the district court.
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

United States v. Wilmer Campos-Mejia, 4th Cir. (2015)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Wilmer Campos-Mejia, 4th Cir. (2015)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Wilmer Campos-Mejia, 4th Cir. (2015)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

September 10, 2015

September 18, 2015

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Geremy C. Kamens, Acting Federal Public Defender, Frances H.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 24

Campos-Mejia contends that his sentence is

Specifically, he claims that his sentence

is procedurally unreasonable because the district court relied

also claims that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable in

crimes underlying the revocation of his supervised release.

We will not disturb a

district courts revocation sentence unless it falls outside the

[T]he [same] procedural

and substantive considerations that guide our review of original

initial inquiry, [i]n determining whether a revocation sentence

quotation marks omitted).

district court considered the advisory policy statement range

Id.; United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438-40

(4th Cir. 2006).

A sentence is substantively reasonable if the

revocation sentence is unreasonable must we assess whether it is

Padgett, 788 F.3d at 373.

We conclude that Campos-Mejias challenge to the procedural

Although the district court referenced unenumerated factors, it

See United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 641-42 (4th

unenumerated factors, we conclude that they were relevant to,

and considered in conjunction with, the enumerated 3553(a)

regarding the Governments assertions at his revocation hearing

Imposing a sentence for the purpose of punishing

See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ch. 7,

1063-64 (9th Cir. 2007); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 437-38.

even if the Governments reasoning at sentencing were taken to

See United States v. Bell, 667 F.3d 431, 447-

48 (4th Cir. 2011).

On the contrary, the record discloses that

the district court based the sentence it imposed on the advisory

challenge its substantive reasonableness, it is unnecessary to

Padgett, 788 F.3d at 373.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment

of the district court.

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.