US v. Marcus Pulley, No. 10-4410 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4410 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MARCUS PULLEY, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:03-cr-00276-FL-1) Submitted: October 13, 2010 Decided: January 24, 2011 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Tobin W. Lathan, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marcus Pulley appeals the district court s imposition of a twenty four month supervised district release. court sentence following revocation On appeal, Pulley a plainly unreasonable imposed his that contends of the sentence upon revocation, given the nature of his violations and the short time he had to receive drug treatment following his release from prison. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. The district court has broad discretion to impose a sentence upon revoking a defendant s supervised release. States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). 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). Our first step is to decide whether the sentence is unreasonable. the procedural Id. at 438. and substantive reviewing original sentences. the In doing so, we follow generally reasonable if district statements contained in considerations Chapter in A sentence is procedurally Id. court employed has 7 of considered the U.S. the policy Sentencing Guidelines Manual and the applicable § 3553(a) factors, id. at 439, and has adequately explained the sentence chosen, though it need not explain the sentence in as much detail as when imposing the original sentence. Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547. 2 A sentence is substantively proper basis statutory reasonable for its maximum. if the imposition Crudup, 461 of district a F.3d court sentence at 440. states up to If, a the after considering the above, we determine that the sentence is not unreasonable, we will affirm. Our review of the Id. at 439. record on appeal leads us to conclude that the district court s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. of the district court. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 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.
