US v. Demetrius Wright, No. 16-4314 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4314 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DEMETRIUS WRIGHT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:07-cr-00424-JAG-1) Submitted: December 28, 2016 Decided: February 9, 2017 Before TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Carolyn V. Grady, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Jessica D. Aber, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Demetrius Wright appeals his 36-month sentence, which the district court imposed after revoking Wright’s supervised release. We affirm. “A district court has broad discretion when sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). imposing a United States v. We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 494 (2015). whether the unreasonable. Cir. 2006). sentence is procedurally We first consider or substantively United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th In making this inquiry, “we strike a more deferential appellate posture than we do when reviewing original sentences.” Padgett, 788 F.3d at 373 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Only if we find the sentence unreasonable must we decide if it is plainly so.” omitted). Webb, 738 F.3d at 640 (internal quotation marks While a district court must explain a revocation sentence, the court “need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence.” United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). We reject Wright’s claims that the district court did not meaningfully consider the revocation range of 6 to 12 months’ imprisonment, gave undue weight to general deterrence, and imposed 2 a sentence that created unwarranted sentencing disparities. court considered the policy-statement range reasons for varying upward from that range. and The articulated The district court’s reasoning did not unduly focus on general deterrence; instead, the court also discussed other applicable sentencing factors. Finally, we reject disproportionately long Wright’s sentence claim that compared he to received offenders a who committed Grade A or B release violations. Such a comparison lacks meaning. See United States v. Chandia, 675 F.3d 329, 342 (4th Cir. 2012). Having rejected Wright’s claims, we also conclude that the district court imposed a procedurally and substantively reasonable sentence. Thus, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before this 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.
