Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-04538/USCOURTS-ca4-15-04538-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Marco Wigfall
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4538

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARCO WIGFALL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

Chief District Judge. (3:09-cr-00039-FDW-9)

Submitted: March 1, 2016 Decided: March 17, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew Nis Leerberg, SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, Kip D. Nelson, SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland 

Rose, United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4538 Doc: 27 Filed: 03/17/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

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

Appeal: 15-4538 Doc: 27 Filed: 03/17/2016 Pg: 2 of 2