United States of America v. Jose Alberto Perez

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4772
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE ALBERTO PEREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:11-cr-00256-JAB-1)
Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 28, 2016
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Randall S. Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jose Alberto Perez appeals his 24-month sentence imposed
upon revocation of his supervised release. On appeal, Perez
asserts that his sentence is plainly unreasonable because it is
longer than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing. We
affirm.
“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a
sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” United States
v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). We will affirm a
sentence if it is within the applicable statutory maximum and
not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d
370, 373 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 494 (2015). “Only
if a revocation sentence is unreasonable must we assess whether
it is plainly so.” Id.
Perez raises no procedural challenge to his sentence. A
revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the district
court states a proper basis for concluding that the defendant
should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory
maximum. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 440 (4th Cir.
2006). Here, when considering the applicable sentencing factors
and imposing sentence, the court discussed Perez’s willful
violations, including signing himself out of a residential
reentry program without permission and absconding from
supervision by failing to alert his probation officer to his

-- 2 of 3 --

3
whereabouts. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), 3583(e) (2012). We
conclude that Perez’s sentence is not unreasonable and,
therefore, not plainly so.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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

-- 3 of 3 --