United States of America v. Christopher Lineberry

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LINEBERRY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District
Judge. (1:02-cr-00044-JPJ-1)
Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: September 8, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
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, Abingdon,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
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, 136 S. Ct. 494 (2015); 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
decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --