US v. Joseph Osamwonyi, No. 10-4351 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4351 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JOSEPH IYOBOSA OSAMWONYI, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:03-cr-00435-REP-1) Submitted: October 25, 2010 Decided: November 29, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Mary E. Maguire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, Research and Writing Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, S. David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joseph Iyobosa Osamwonyi appeals the district court s order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to six months imprisonment, followed by four years and six months supervised release. On appeal, Osamwonyi sentence is plainly unreasonable. contends that his Finding no reversible error, we affirm. A district court has broad discretion to impose sentence upon revoking a defendant s supervised release. States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). a 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). We first unreasonable, substantive follow[ing] considerations original sentences. reasonable must if the decide generally that we Id. at 438. district whether court the the employ sentence procedural in our review is and of A sentence is procedurally has considered the policy statements contained in chapter seven of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ( USSG ) and the applicable § 3553(a) factors and has explained adequately the sentence chosen, though it need not explain the sentence in as much detail as when imposing the original sentence. Id. at 439. A sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court states a proper basis for its 2 imposition of a sentence up to the statutory maximum. 440. Id. at If, after considering the above, we determine that the sentence is not unreasonable, we will affirm. Osamwonyi supervised plainly release term on September collateral Because 10, challenge both of to by and his his the the imprisonment district Osamwonyi 2010, consequences Osamwonyi s that imposed unreasonable. prison moot. argues Id. at 439. has was not court released are from demonstrated imprisonment, imprisonment and we upon hold any that revocation is See United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 284 (4th Cir. 2008). Further, we hold that the district court s imposition of four years unreasonable. and six months Procedurally, explained its chosen and USSG supervised the district sentence factors of chapter Substantively, the district and court considered seven court release stated the policy a proper sentencing Osamwonyi within the statutory maximum. was not adequately § 3553(a) statements. basis for A term of supervised release imposed upon revocation is limited to the term of supervised release authorized by statute for the offense that resulted in the original term of supervised release, less any term of imprisonment that was imposed upon revocation of supervised release. 2010). Osamwonyi s 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(h) (West 2000 & Supp. bank fraud 3 conviction, resulting in his original term of supervised release, is a Class B felony, see 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(1) (2006); 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (2006), for which the maximum term of supervised release is five years. § 5D1.2(a)(1) (2003). USSG Thus, the district court did not err when it imposed a four and a half year period of supervised release (five year maximum minus six month term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation). was not Because we conclude that Osamwonyi s sentence unreasonable, we need not consider whether it was plainly so. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s order. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

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.