US v. Jeremy Kiser, No. 10-4543 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4543 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEREMY KISER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (2:06-cr-00151-1) Submitted: December 29, 2010 Decided: January 18, 2011 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin, II, United States Attorney, Lisa G. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jeremy revoking his Kiser appeals supervised release twenty-four months in prison. plainly unreasonable. This the district and court s sentencing order him to Kiser argues that his sentence is We affirm. court will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it 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). first assess the sentence for reasonableness, We follow[ing] generally the procedural and substantive considerations that we employ in our review of original sentences, . . . with some necessary modifications to take into account the unique nature of supervised release revocation sentences. Only if a sentence is Id. at 438-39. found procedurally or substantively unreasonable will we decide whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. omitted). Although Sentencing Guidelines the Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439 (emphasis district Chapter 7 court policy must consider statements and the the requirements of 18 U.S.C.A. ยงยง 3553(a), 3583 (West 2000 & Supp. 2009), the [district] court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke its previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 2 Kiser argues that the district court s sentence is plainly unreasonable because it fails to adequately further the goals of supervised release. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court carefully evaluated Kiser s failure to meaningfully cooperate with his probation officer and the court during his period of supervised release. We accordingly conclude that the sentence imposed by the district court is not plainly unreasonable, and we affirm the district court s judgment. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the 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.
