US v. Damion Colclough

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-5108 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAMION HARLAN COLCLOUGH, a/k/a Richard Jackson, a/k/a Omar House, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:03-cr-00075-RBS-TEM-1) Submitted: September 2, 2010 Decided: November 18, 2010 Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Rodolfo Cejas, II, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt, Research and Writing Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Sherrie S. Capotosto, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Damion Harlan Colclough appeals the district court's imposition revocation of of a his twentyfour--month term of sentence release. following On the supervised appeal, Colclough contends that, based on the facts of his case, the district court imposed a plainly unreasonable sentence upon revocation. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. The district court has broad discretion to impose a sentence upon revoking a defendant's supervised release. States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). United We will affirm unless the sentence is "plainly unreasonable" in light of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). Our first step is to decide whether the sentence is unreasonable. "the Id. at 438. and In doing so, we generally follow considerations" employed in procedural substantive Id. court reviewing original sentences. reasonable statements if the district in A sentence is procedurally has 7 of considered the U.S. the policy contained Chapter Sentencing Guidelines Manual and the applicable § 3553(a) factors, id. at 439, and has adequately explained the sentence chosen, though it need not explain the sentence in as much detail as when imposing the original sentence. is substantively Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547. if 2 the district court A sentence states a reasonable proper basis for its imposition Crudup, 461 of a sentence at 440. up to the after statutory maximum. F.3d If, considering the above, we determine that the sentence is not unreasonable, we will affirm. Our review of the Id. at 439. record on appeal leads us to conclude that the district court's sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. of the district court. Accordingly, we affirm the 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