US v. Stephen Venni, No. 10-4521 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4521 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEPHEN BRADLEY VENNIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:98-cr-00010-IMK-1) Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: February 18, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Sherry L. Muncy, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Stephen Bradley Vennis appeals the district court s judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a sentence of twenty-four months imprisonment. sentence is plainly unreasonable. Vennis alleges that his For the following reasons, we affirm. A district court has broad sentencing discretion upon revoking a defendant s supervised release. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). We will affirm if the sentence is within the applicable statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). In determining whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we first assess the sentence for unreasonableness, follow[ing] generally the procedural and substantive considerations that we employ in our review of original sentences. A supervised procedurally reasonable Id. at 438. release if the revocation district sentence considered court is the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Chapter 7 policy statements and the 18 supervised U.S.C. release § 3553(a) (2006) revocation. See (2006); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. factors 18 relevant U.S.C. § to a 3583(e)(3) Although the district court need not explain the reasons for imposing a revocation sentence in as much detail as when it imposes an original sentence, it 2 still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed. Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks omitted). A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the district defendant court should receive found a proper the basis sentence for procedurally or substantively concluding imposed, Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. statutory maximum. is stated up to the the Only if a sentence unreasonable will decide whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. we Id. at 439. We have carefully reviewed Vennis s sentence and find it to district be procedurally court heard and substantively the parties reasonable. arguments, The implicitly considered the Chapter Seven advisory policy statement range and the pertinent 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and explained its reasons for imposing the twenty-four month sentence. The district court stated a proper basis for Vennis s sentence namely, Vennis s history and background, and his high risk of recidivism. neither Based on our conclusion that Vennis s sentence is procedurally necessarily follows unreasonable. nor that substantively Vennis s unreasonable, sentence is not it plainly Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment revoking Vennis s supervised release and imposing a twenty-four month prison term. We dispense with oral argument because the 3 facts and materials legal before contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the 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.
