United States of America v. Henrry Arita Lozano, a/k/a Jerlin Matamoros-Sosa, a/k/a Henry Losano

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4178
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
HENRRY ARITA LOZANO, a/k/a Jerlin Matamoros-Sosa, a/k/a
Henry Losano,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:09-cr-00146-HEH-1)
Submitted: October 21, 2014 Decided: November 12, 2014
Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Caroline S.
Platt, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Mary E. Maguire,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellant. Stephen David Schiller, Assistant United States
Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Henrry Arita Lozano appeals his sentence of eighteen
months’ imprisonment imposed upon revocation of his supervised
release. Lozano’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether
the sentence imposed is plainly unreasonable. Lozano was
advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he
did not file one. The Government did not file a brief. We
affirm.
We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of
supervised release if it is within the statutory maximum 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. In
this initial inquiry, our review concerning issues of fact and
the exercise of discretion is more deferential than the
reasonableness review accorded to Guidelines sentences. United
States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). Only if
we find the sentence unreasonable must we decide whether it is
plainly so. Id. at 657; see also United States v. Bennett, 698
F.3d 194, 200 (4th Cir. 2012). While a district court must
explain its sentence, the court “need not be as detailed or
specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when

-- 2 of 4 --

3
imposing a post-conviction sentence.” United States v.
Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).
“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). In
exercising such discretion the court “is guided by the Chapter
Seven policy statements in the federal Guidelines manual, as
well as the statutory factors applicable to revocation sentences
under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e).” Id. at 641. “Chapter
Seven instructs that, in fashioning a revocation sentence, ‘the
court should sanction primarily the defendant’s breach of trust,
while taking into account, to a limited degree, the seriousness
of the underlying violation and the criminal history of the
violator.’” Id. (quoting U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ch.
7, pt. A(3)(b) (2012)).
The record reflects that in imposing the sentence, the
district court properly focused on Lozano’s breach of trust.
The court also cited the need for deterrence, considered the
applicable sentencing factors, and adequately explained the
chosen sentence, which was within the statutory maximum. We
therefore conclude that the sentence was not plainly
unreasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Lozano, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Lozano requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Lozano. 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

-- 4 of 4 --