Case ID: f-appx_78/html/0253-02.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. Russell P. MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-4417.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 1, 2003.
    Decided Oct. 17, 2003.
    
      Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Russell P. Martin appeals the district court’s order affirming the twelve-month prison sentence the magistrate judge imposed after revoking his probation. Martin asserts that his sentence, which was greater than the recommended sentencing range of three to nine months of imprisonment, was plainly unreasonable because he admitted to violating the terms of his probation, he answered truthfully the inquiries by his probation officer, and his violations were relatively minor. Martin also contends that the sentencing judge failed to consider the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000), before imposing the sentence. In addition, Martin filed a pro se supplemental brief challenging his original sentence of twelve months of probation. Finding no error, we affirm.

We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in affirming Martin’s sentence of twelve months of imprisonment. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir.1995) (providing standard of review). Martin’s sentence was within the statutory maximum, see 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) (2000), and the magistrate judge properly considered the sentencing factors set forth in § 3553(a), including the recommended sentence provided for in Chapter 7 of the sentencing guidelines. We further conclude that Martin failed to raise any meritorious issues in his pro se supplemental brief.

Accordingly, we grant Martin’s motion for leave to file a pro se supplemental brief and affirm the order of the district court. 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.