UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-5191

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL B. MARTISKO,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, 

District Judge. (1:07-cr-00104-IMK-JES-3)

Submitted: June 2, 2011 Decided: June 16, 2011

Before SHEDD and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kristen Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, Martinsburg, 

West Virginia; L. Richard Walker, Senior Litigator, Clarksburg, 

West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United 

States Attorney, Zelda E. Wesley, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael B. Martisko appeals the sixteen-month sentence 

imposed following the district court’s revocation of supervised 

release. On appeal, Martisko contends that the district court

imposed a plainly unreasonable sentence. Finding no error, we 

affirm.

The district court has broad discretion to impose a 

sentence upon revoking a defendant’s supervised release. United 

States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). Thus, we 

assume “a deferential appellate posture concerning issues of 

fact and the exercise of [that] discretion,” United States v. 

Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation 

marks omitted), and will affirm unless the sentence is “plainly 

unreasonable” in light of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

(2006) factors. 461 F.3d at 437.

Our first step in reviewing a sentence imposed upon 

revocation of supervised release is to “decide whether the 

sentence is unreasonable.” Id. at 438. In doing so, we “follow 

generally the procedural and substantive considerations”

employed in reviewing original sentences. Id. A sentence is 

procedurally reasonable if the district court has considered the 

policy statements contained in Chapter 7 of the U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual and the applicable § 3553(a) factors, id. at 

439, and has adequately explained the sentence chosen, though it 
3

need not explain the sentence in as much detail as when imposing 

the original sentence. Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547. In some 

cases, “a district court’s reasons for imposing a within-range 

sentence may be clear from context, including the court’s 

statements to the defendant throughout the sentencing hearing.” 

Id. (citation omitted). Unless the district court completely 

fails to indicate any reasons for its sentence, “[w]e may be 

hard-pressed to find any explanation for within-range, 

revocation sentences insufficient given the amount of deference 

we afford district courts when imposing these sentences.” Id. 

A sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court 

states a proper basis for its imposition of a sentence up to the 

statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. If we determine 

that the sentence is not unreasonable, we will affirm. Id. at 

439. 

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the 

revocation sentence is not unreasonable, let alone plainly so. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment 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