Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher LINEBERRY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-09-08
Citations: 668 F. App'x 497
Docket Number: No. 16-4019
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher LINEBERRY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 497–498

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher LINEBERRY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-4019
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 18, 2016
Decided: September 8, 2016
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Brian J. Beck, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. John P. Fishwick, Jr., United States Attorney, Kevin L. Jayne, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Abing-don, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Lee Lineberry appeals from the 42-month sentence imposed by the district court upon revocation of his supervised release. We affirm. A district court "has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release." United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). A revocation sentence that is both within the applicable statutory maximum and not "plainly unreasonable" will be affirmed on appeal. United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 136 act. 494, 193 L.Ed.2d 360 (2016); United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437-38 (4th Cir. 2006). In conducting this review, we assess the sentence for reasonableness, utilizing "the procedural and substantive considerations" employed in evaluating an original criminal sentence. Id. at 438.
We find that Lineberry's sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court appropriately considered Lineberry's argument for a below-Guidelines sentence and adequately explained its reasons for the sentence imposed. Accordingly, we affirm. 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 in the deci-sional process.
AFFIRMED