Case ID: f-appx_638/html/0252-01.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. Marco WIGFALL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-4538.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 1, 2016.
    Decided: March 17, 2016.
    Matthew Nis Leerberg, Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, Kip D. Nelson, Smith Moore Leath-erwood LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

■ Marco Wigfall appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 12 months’ imprisonment. Wigfall argues that his sentence was plainly unreasonable because the district court mistakenly believed that Wigfall’s revocation sentence had to run consecutively to his state prison sentence. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court correctly understood that it had discretion to impose a concurrent or consecutive sentence. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.3(f) (2009) (policy statement expressing preference for consecutive sentences); United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546-47 (4th Cir.2010) (discussing non-binding nature of policy statements concerning revocation). 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.