Opinion ID: 751564
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: issues

Text: 21 Marvin advances two arguments for our consideration. Initially, he contends that the district court's imposition of a two-year sentence, an upward deviation from § 7B1.4(a)'s stated term of imprisonment and the maximum allowed under 18 U.S.C. § 3583, constituted a plainly unreasonable exercise of judicial discretion insofar as it was allegedly based upon a mischaracterization of the record and unsupported factual assumptions, as well as not exacted pursuant to what he terms an incremental approach. It is noteworthy that Marvin, during his revocation hearing, stated to the court that he was prepared to ... return to prison in accordance with the guidelines, thereby agreeing to and not even challenging eleven months of incarceration. Thus, he does not contest his sentence in toto--only the thirteen months 9 beyond the guideline range are at issue herein. 10 Second, Marvin asserts that it was plain error for the district court to have failed to provide him with reasonable notice as to the possibility of an upward deviation from § 7B1.4(a)'s recommended sentence.