Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 37 views

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Joshua Ray Neale's 23-month sentence imposed by the district court following the revocation of his supervised release term. Neale argued his sentence was plainly unreasonable because the district court ordered it to run consecutively to his state sentence. The Court of Appeals found the district court's decision to impose a consecutive sentence was reasonable under the Sentencing Guidelines and relevant statutes. The Court of Appeals also found the district court properly considered the applicable sentencing factors and policy statements, tailored its reasoning to Neale's individual circumstances, and sufficiently explained the basis for the sentence. Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    37 views4 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Joshua Ray Neale's 23-month sentence imposed by the district court following the revocation of his supervised release term. Neale argued his sentence was plainly unreasonable because the district court ordered it to run consecutively to his state sentence. The Court of Appeals found the district court's decision to impose a consecutive sentence was reasonable under the Sentencing Guidelines and relevant statutes. The Court of Appeals also found the district court properly considered the applicable sentencing factors and policy statements, tailored its reasoning to Neale's individual circumstances, and sufficiently explained the basis for the sentence. Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-03-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-4610

    Original Title

    United States v. Joshua Neale, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Joshua Ray Neale's 23-month sentence imposed by the district court following the revocation of his supervised release term. Neale argued his sentence was plainly unreasonable because the district court ordered it to run consecutively to his state sentence. The Court of Appeals found the district court's decision to impose a consecutive sentence was reasonable under the Sentencing Guidelines and relevant statutes. The Court of Appeals also found the district court properly considered the applicable sentencing factors and policy statements, tailored its reasoning to Neale's individual circumstances, and sufficiently explained the basis for the sentence. Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    37 views4 pages

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Joshua Ray Neale's 23-month sentence imposed by the district court following the revocation of his supervised release term. Neale argued his sentence was plainly unreasonable because the district court ordered it to run consecutively to his state sentence. The Court of Appeals found the district court's decision to impose a consecutive sentence was reasonable under the Sentencing Guidelines and relevant statutes. The Court of Appeals also found the district court properly considered the applicable sentencing factors and policy statements, tailored its reasoning to Neale's individual circumstances, and sufficiently explained the basis for the sentence. Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-4610

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JOSHUA RAY NEALE,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.
    Michael F. Urbanski,
    District Judge. (5:02-cr-30020-MFU-17)

    Submitted:

    February 27, 2015

    Decided:

    March 6, 2015

    Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine


    Lee, Research and Writing Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
    Appellant.
    Timothy
    J.
    Heaphy,
    United
    States
    Attorney,
    Elizabeth G.
    Wright,
    Assistant
    United
    States
    Attorney,
    Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Joshua

    Ray

    Neale

    appeals

    the

    23-month

    sentence

    imposed

    following the revocation of his supervised release term.


    appeal,

    Neale

    contends

    that

    his

    sentence

    was

    On

    plainly

    unreasonable because it was ordered to run consecutively to his


    state sentence.
    A

    Finding no error, we affirm.

    district

    sentence

    has

    imposing

    We will

    sentence

    supervised

    when

    States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013).


    revocation

    of

    discretion

    United

    revocation

    broad

    release.

    affirm

    upon

    court

    that

    is

    within

    the

    prescribed

    statutory range and not plainly unreasonable.

    United States v.

    Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006).

    We first consider

    whether

    the

    sentence

    is

    procedurally

    or

    substantively

    unreasonable, employing the same general considerations applied


    during review of original sentences.

    Id. at 438.

    In this

    initial inquiry, we take[] a more deferential appellate posture


    concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than
    reasonableness

    review

    for

    guidelines

    sentences.

    United

    States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal
    quotation marks omitted).

    If we find the sentence unreasonable,

    we must then determine whether it is plainly so.


    A

    supervised

    reasonable

    if

    the

    release

    revocation

    district

    court

    sentence
    considered

    Id. at 657.

    is
    the

    procedurally
    Sentencing

    Guidelines Chapter Seven advisory policy statements and the 18


    2

    U.S.C.

    3553(a)

    release

    (2012)

    revocation

    factors

    context,

    applicable

    see

    18

    to

    U.S.C.

    the

    supervised

    3583(e)

    (2012);

    Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439, and provided sufficient explanation for


    the sentence imposed, see United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d
    544,

    547

    (4th

    Cir.

    2010).

    revocation

    sentence

    is

    substantively reasonable if the district court stated a proper


    basis for concluding the defendant should receive the sentence
    imposed.
    On

    Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.


    appeal,

    unreasonable

    Neale

    because

    consecutively

    to

    asserts
    the

    his

    court

    state

    argument unpersuasive.

    that

    his

    ordered

    court

    sentence
    that

    sentence.

    is

    plainly

    it

    be

    served

    We

    find

    this

    Upon our review, we find the district

    courts decision to order a consecutive revocation sentence to


    be

    reasonable.

    See

    USSG

    7B1.3(f),

    p.s.;

    Johnson, 640 F.3d 195, 208 (6th Cir. 2011).


    Neale

    otherwise

    challenges

    the

    United

    States

    v.

    To the extent that

    procedural

    and

    substantive

    reasonableness of his sentence, we find such contention to be


    lacking in merit.

    The court considered the Chapter Seven policy

    statements and the proper factors under 3553(a), tailored the


    factors

    to

    Neales

    individual

    circumstances,

    and

    more

    than

    adequately explained its proper basis for the sentence.


    Accordingly, we affirm the district courts judgment.
    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    We

    legal

    contentions

    are

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

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

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy