US v. Marc Wertz, No. 12-4503 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4503 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARC LEE WERTZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00135-TDS-1) Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 26, 2012 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, Senior Litigator, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marc Lee Wertz appeals the district court s judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twentyfour months imprisonment. Wertz s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising two issues: (1) whether the district court abused its discretion in revoking his supervised release, and (2) whether his sentence was unreasonable. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. First, we review a district court s judgment revoking supervised release and imposing a term of imprisonment for abuse of discretion, United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992). Here, we find none. To revoke supervised release, a district court need only find a violation of a condition of supervised release by a preponderance of the evidence, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) crimes while (2006), on and here release. Wertz Wertz s admitted committing convictions on state new drug charges provided the factual basis to support the revocation. Second, we will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed statutory range and not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439 40 (4th Cir. 2006). We first consider whether the unreasonable. sentence Id. is at 438-39. procedurally or substantively In this initial inquiry, we take 2 a more deferential posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than reasonableness review for guidelines sentences. Cir. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th 2007). Only if we substantively unreasonable plainly so. find must the we sentence decide procedurally or whether is it Id. at 657. While a district court must consider the Chapter Seven policy statements of the Sentencing Guidelines and the statutory factors applicable to revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e) (2006), the court need not robotically tick through every subsection, and ultimately, the court has broad discretion to revoke the previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. Moulden, at 656 57. Moreover, while a district court must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence, the court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as when imposing a United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d post-conviction sentence. 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). conclude that Wertz s We have reviewed the record and sentence is within the prescribed sentencing range and is not plainly unreasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. sentence. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment and This court requires that counsel inform his client, 3 in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court at that time for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this 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.
