Case ID: f-appx_200/html/0206-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vincente ROMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-5092.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 26, 2006.
    Decided: Sept. 28, 2006.
    
      Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Devon L. Donahue, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Vincente Roman appeals his eighteen-month term of imprisonment imposed after the district court revoked his supervised release. He argues that the sentence is unreasonable because it was higher than the applicable advisory sentencing range of six to twelve months pursuant to policy statements in Chapter 7 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual. Pursuant to United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir.2006), revocation sentences are reviewed to determine whether they are “plainly unreasonable” with regard to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors applicable to these sentences. We find that Roman’s sentence is not plainly unreasonable, because the district court sufficiently stated a proper basis for its conclusion that Roman should be sentenced to a lengthier sentence than one within the advisory range. We therefore affirm Roman’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.