UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4756

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FELIX JOEL LUNA CABAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr.,

District Judge. (3:15-cr-00168-JAG-1)

Submitted: April 21, 2016 Decided: April 28, 2016

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Geremy C. Kamens, Acting Federal Public Defender, Mary E. 

Maguire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Nicholas J. Xenakis, 

Research & Writing Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Stephen C. 

Dimpsey, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Felix Joel Luna Caban was convicted by a magistrate judge 

of violating his probation and sentenced to 10 months’ 

imprisonment. Luna Caban appealed to the district court, which 

affirmed. He now appeals to this court, arguing that the 

sentence imposed by the magistrate judge was plainly 

unreasonable. We affirm.

We review a sentence imposed upon revocation of probation 

to determine whether it is “plainly unreasonable.” United 

States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). We first 

determine whether the sentence is unreasonable, “follow[ing] 

generally the procedural and substantive considerations that we 

employ in our review of original sentences.” United States v. 

Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). In reviewing a 

revocation sentence, we apply “a more ‘deferential appellate 

posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of 

discretion’ than reasonableness review for guidelines 

sentences.” Moulden, 478 F.3d at 656 (quoting Crudup, 461 F.3d 

at 439). Only if we find a revocation sentence unreasonable 

must we determine whether it is “plainly” so. Crudup, 461 F.3d 

at 439.

A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the 

court considered the policy statements in Chapter Seven of the 

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual and the applicable 18 U.S.C. 
3

§ 3553(a) (2012) factors. Moulden, 478 F.3d at 656; see

18 U.S.C. § 3565 (2012). The court must provide an adequate 

statement of reasons for the revocation sentence it imposes, but 

this statement need not be as specific or as detailed as that 

required in imposing an original sentence. United States v. 

Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). A revocation 

sentence is substantively reasonable if the court stated a 

proper basis for concluding that the defendant should receive 

the sentence imposed. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. The sentence 

must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to satisfy

the goals of sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). However, 

“the sentencing court retains broad discretion to revoke a 

defendant’s probation and impose a term of imprisonment up to 

the statutory maximum.” Moulden, 478 F.3d at 657.

On appeal, Luna Caban primarily argues that the magistrate 

judge procedurally erred in failing to adequately address 

defense counsel’s arguments when articulating the reasons for 

Luna Caban’s sentence. However, we conclude the magistrate 

judge’s statement of reasons was adequate to “provide some 

indication” that it “considered the potentially meritorious 

arguments raised by both parties about sentencing.” United 

States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 2006); cf.

United States v. Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673, 679 (7th Cir. 2005)
4

(discussing court’s failure to address defendant’s arguments 

regarding his severe psychiatric illness and substance abuse).

The magistrate judge implicitly rejected Luna Caban’s

argument that extenuating circumstances justified or mitigated 

his violations in observing his longstanding pattern of 

violating court orders. The magistrate judge explicitly stated 

that he found no basis for the downward variance requested by 

defense counsel and addressed each of the relevant § 3553(a) 

factors. While the court placed heavy emphasis on Luna Caban’s 

repeated noncompliance, a sentencing court is permitted to place 

significant weight on a single factor if, as here, it is

justified by the record as a whole. See United States v. 

Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 476 (4th Cir. 2007).

Luna Caban faults the magistrate judge for not 

acknowledging Luna Caban’s financial obligations or that his 

incarceration would compound these financial challenges by 

preventing his return to work. However, the magistrate judge 

specifically noted that he had originally imposed a “generous” 

sentence precisely to permit Luna Caban to make continued 

payments, yet Luna Caban had failed to comply with the 

requirements of his release. See Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d at 381 

(addressing importance of viewing statement of reasons in 

context). On the whole, we conclude the magistrate judge’s 

explanation, which was both tailored to the specific 
5

circumstances of Luna Caban’s case and grounded in the § 3553(a) 

factors, adequately demonstrated that he “considered the 

parties’ arguments and ha[d] a reasoned basis for exercising 

[his] own decisionmaking authority” in rejecting Luna Caban’s 

request for a variance. See United States v. Allmedinger, 706 

F.3d 330, 343 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks 

omitted).

Finally, Luna Caban argues that his sentence, which was two 

months below the statutory maximum, was substantively 

unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to satisfy 

the § 3553(a) factors. Our review of the record leads us to 

conclude that the court acted well within its broad discretion 

in sentencing Luna Caban to the middle of his policy statement 

range.

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