US v. Joshua Brady, No. 16-4621 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4621 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSHUA CLAYTON BRADY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cr-00127-JAG-1) Submitted: March 23, 2017 Decided: March 30, 2017 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Appellate Attorney, Mary E. Maguire, Assistant Federal Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. United States Attorney, Michael C. Moore, Assistant States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Bryant, Public Boente, United Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: The district court revoked Joshua Clayton Brady’s probation and sentenced him to supervised release. 30 months’ imprisonment Brady appeals. with 6 months’ For the following reasons, we affirm. We will affirm a revocation sentence if it falls within the statutory maximum and is 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). Under this standard, we first consider sentence is procedurally or substantively United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court considered the policy statements in Chapter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines Manual, the policy statement range, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors identified in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012). Padgett, 788 F.3d at 373. A sentence is presumed substantively reasonable if it falls within the policy statement range. Id. “Only if we find the sentence unreasonable must we decide whether it is plainly so.” United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). On appeal, Brady argues that the district court imposed a plainly unreasonable sentence because the district court undervalued his policy statement range, rejected the parties’ 2 recommended sentence without adequate explanation, and imposed a sentence greater than necessary by giving insufficient weight to certain § 3553(a) factors. The record, however, shows that the district the court evaluated policy statement range, the parties’ recommendation, and all the relevant § 3553(a) factors. In light of those factors, the district court imposed a reasonable sentence. order. legal before We therefore affirm the district court’s We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the material 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.
