UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4534

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

MARQUEIS D. LONGUS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:04-cr-00254-REP-1) 

Submitted: October 20, 2008 Decided: November 24, 2008 

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. 

Pratt, Paul G. Gill, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, 

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United 

States Attorney, Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Marqueis D. Longus appeals the district court’s 

judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a sentence 

of twenty-four months’ imprisonment. Longus alleges that his 

sentence is plainly unreasonable. For the following reasons, we 

affirm. 

 We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of 

supervised release if it is not plainly unreasonable. United 

States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). The 

sentence first must be assessed for reasonableness, “follow[ing] 

generally the procedural and substantive considerations that we 

employ in our review of original sentences[,] . . . with some 

necessary modifications to take into account the unique nature 

of supervised release revocation sentences.” Id. at 438-39; see

United States v. Finley, 531 F.3d 288, 294 (4th Cir. 2008) (“In 

applying the ‘plainly unreasonable’ standard, we first 

determine, using the instructions given in Gall [v. United 

States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007)], whether a sentence is 

‘unreasonable.’”). 

 We affirm a sentence that is not unreasonable. 

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. Only if a sentence is found 

procedurally or substantively unreasonable will we “decide 

2 
3 

whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable.”* Id.; see Finley, 

531 F.3d at 294. Although the district court must consider the 

Chapter 7 policy statements and the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 3553(a), 3583 (2006), “the [district] court ultimately has 

broad discretion to revoke its previous sentence and impose a 

term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum.” Crudup, 461 

F.3d at 439 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

 We have thoroughly reviewed Longus’ sentence and find 

it to be procedurally and substantively reasonable. Based on 

this conclusion, “it necessarily follows that” Longus’ sentence 

is not “plainly unreasonable.” Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440; see 

Finley, 531 F.3d at 297. 

 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment 

revoking Longus’ supervised release and imposing a twenty-four 

month prison term. 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

 *

“[F]or purposes of determining whether an unreasonable 

sentence is plainly unreasonable, ‘plain’ is synonymous with 

‘clear’ or, equivalently, ‘obvious.’” Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439 

(internal quotation marks, citation, and alteration omitted).