Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Francisco Armando RIVERA, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-14
Citations: 73 F. App'x 482
Docket Number: No. 02-1586
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Francisco Armando RIVERA, Appellant.
Judges: Present: JACOBS and SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 73
Pages: 482–483

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Francisco Armando RIVERA, Appellant.
No. 02-1586.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Aug. 14, 2003.
Colleen P. Cassidy, the Legal Aid Society, Federal Defender Division, Appeals Bureau, New York, NY, for Appellant.
Jonathan B. Leiken, Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York (James B. Comey, United States Attorney, Christine H. Chung, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Appellee.
Present: JACOBS and SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges.
The Honorable Fred I. Parker, who was a member of the panel, died following argument, and the appeal is being decided by the remaining two members of the panel, who are in agreement. See Local Rule § 0.14(b).

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Francisco Armando Rivera appeals from a final judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (McMahon, J.) revoking probation and sentencing him to a two-year term of imprisonment. We affirm.
A district court may revoke the sentence of probation after considering the Chapter Seven policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), 3563(a); U.S.S.G. ch. 7, pt. (A)l. Because the policy statements are merely advisory, the sentencing court has "broad discretion to revoke its previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum" and "need not make the explicit, detailed findings required when it departs upward from a binding guideline." United States v. Pelensky, 129 F.3d 63, 69 (2d Cir.1997) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
In this case, the statutory maximum for the underlying offense was five years. Judge McMahon revoked the sentence of probation and imposed a two-year term of imprisonment after considering a range of four to ten months suggested by the policy statements. The sentence was entirely reasonable. See id.