US v. Karen Martin, No. 10-4455 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4455 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KAREN FRANCISCO MARTIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:03-cr-00104-jpj-1) Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 6, 2010 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Brian J. Beck, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Karen Francisco Martin appeals from the revocation of her supervised release. She raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the district court adequately explained its findings of her Grade B violations, and (2) whether the court sentencing her to a twenty-four-month sentence. erred in For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Martin was originally sentenced to thirty months of imprisonment for bank fraud and related crimes. Her supervised release was previously revoked, and she was sentenced to four months. Thereafter, Martin was released for a second term of supervised release. After approximately five months, Martin s probation officer filed a petition for revocation of supervised release. The district court found that Martin had committed all five of her supervised release violations and sentenced her to a twenty-four-month term of imprisonment with no period of supervised release thereafter. On violations fraud appeal, for under Martin Virginia contests her another committing only crime, e.g., law. We review the two Grade B prescription district court s decision to revoke Martin s supervised release for an abuse of discretion, United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995), violation noting of a that a condition district of 2 court need supervised only release find a by a preponderance of the evidence. Supp. 2010). district Here, court s engaging in we 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West find findings no that prescription abuse Martin fraud. of discretion violated Thus, in law state we the by affirm these revocations. Next, Martin contests her sentence. We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed unreasonable. (4th Cir. statutory range and not plainly United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 2006). In determining whether a sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable, id. at 438, we take a more deferential posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than reasonableness review for non- revocation sentences. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). Only if we find the sentence procedurally or substantively plainly so. unreasonable must we decide whether it is Id. at 657. The district court considered the Chapter Seven policy statements and the statutory factors applicable to revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C.A §§ 3553(a), 3583(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2010), calculated Martin s advisory range as 4-10 months, stated its reasons for sentencing her outside the range, and sentenced her below the statutory maximum. advisory The court explained that Martin s previous four-month revocation sentence 3 had failed to ensure her compliance with the terms of her instant supervised release, that she failed to follow hardly any (JA 128) of her probation officer s directions, and that the court believed the more structured environment of prison would allow Martin abuse problem. not find a better chance (JA 126-30). that address her substance Under these circumstances, we do Martin s substantively unreasonable. to sentence was procedurally or See United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010) (noting that a district court s statement of reasons for a revocation sentence need not be as detailed or specific as other sentences). Accordingly, release argument violations as the we affirm and her facts and Martin s sentence. legal We Grade B dispense contentions are supervised with oral adequately discussed 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.
