United States of America v. Steffen V. Wright

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4989
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
STEFFEN V. WRIGHT,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (5:03-cr-00052-2)
Submitted: April 10, 2009 Decided: April 21, 2009
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T.
Miller, United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United
States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Steffen V. Wright appeals his sentence to eleven
months in prison and forty-eight months of supervised release
imposed in the district court’s judgment revoking supervised
release. On appeal, Wright does not challenge the district
court’s finding that he violated the conditions of his
supervised release, but he contends that his eleven-month prison
sentence is plainly unreasonable because it does not further the
purposes of supervised release. We affirm.
We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of
supervised release if it is within the prescribed statutory
range and not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup,
461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). We first consider whether
the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Id.
at 438. While a district court must consider the Chapter 7
policy statements, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Ch. 7, Pt.
B (2007), and the statutory requirements and factors applicable
to revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e)
(2006), the district court ultimately has broad discretion to
revoke the previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment
up to the statutory maximum. Id. at 438-39. Only if we find
the sentence procedurally or substantively unreasonable, must we
decide whether it is “plainly” unreasonable. Id. at 439.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We have reviewed the record and find Wright’s sentence
is both procedurally and substantively reasonable, and within
the prescribed statutory range. In imposing its sentence, the
district court considered Wright’s policy statement range under
USSG § 7B1.4 and the relevant statutory requirements and
factors, and the court reasonably determined a prison sentence
at the high end of the policy statement range, followed by a new
supervised release term, was appropriate in this case.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 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

-- 3 of 3 --