US v. Carl Boltz, No. 08-5158 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-5158 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CARL JAMES BOLTZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:04-cr-00187-F-1) Submitted: September 28, 2009 Decided: December 8, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carl sentence James imposed Boltz on appeals revocation of his twenty-four-month supervised release. We affirm. On appeal, Boltz argues that the sentence imposed is plainly unreasonable because the district court failed to consider whether community-based drug treatment programs would have provided Boltz with needed treatment. Boltz does not challenge the district court s decision to revoke his supervised release or its guidelines calculations. The Government responds that the district court s sentence is not unreasonable. In United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006), we held that revocation sentences should be reviewed to determine whether they are plainly unreasonable with regard applicable Although to to the those [18 U.S.C.] supervised district release court must § 3553(a) (2006) revocation consider the factors sentences. Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable requirements of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e) (2006), the court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke its previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. 439 (internal quotation marks and Crudup, 461 F.3d at citation omitted). A sentencing court must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed, United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 657 2 (4th Cir. 2007) (probation revocation), but the court need not robotically tick through explicitly discuss § 3553(a) s § 3553(a) every every factor subsection, on the or record. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). Our review of the record in this case convinces us that the district court adequately explained its reasons for the sentencing and we find that the sentence is neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. 531 F.3d States, 288, 552 reviewing 297 U.S. a (4th 38, Cir. ___, sentence See United States v. Finley, 2008) 128 S. (applying Gall Ct. 597 to determine affirm Boltz s 586, if v. United (2007), in it is plainly sentence. We dispense unreasonable). We therefore 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
