US v. Michael Martisko, No. 10-5191 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5191 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MICHAEL B. MARTISKO, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00104-IMK-JES-3) Submitted: June 2, 2011 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. WYNN, Decided: Circuit Judges, and June 16, 2011 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kristen Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, Martinsburg, West Virginia; L. Richard Walker, Senior Litigator, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Zelda E. Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael B. Martisko appeals the sixteen-month sentence imposed following the district court s revocation of supervised release. On appeal, Martisko contends that the district court imposed a plainly unreasonable sentence. Finding no 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). assume a deferential appellate posture concerning United Thus, we issues of fact and the exercise of [that] discretion, United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted), and will affirm unless the sentence is plainly unreasonable in light of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. 461 F.3d at 437. Our first step in reviewing a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised sentence is unreasonable. generally the procedural release is Id. at 438. and to decide whether the In doing so, we follow substantive employed in reviewing original sentences. Id. considerations A sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court has considered the policy statements contained in Chapter 7 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual and the applicable § 3553(a) factors, id. at 439, and has adequately explained the sentence chosen, though it 2 need not explain the sentence in as much detail as when imposing the original sentence. Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547. In some cases, a district court s reasons for imposing a within-range sentence may be clear from context, including the court s statements to the defendant throughout the sentencing hearing. Id. (citation omitted). Unless the district court completely fails to indicate any reasons for its sentence, [w]e may be hard-pressed to find any explanation for within-range, revocation sentences insufficient given the amount of deference we afford district courts when imposing these sentences. Id. A sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court states a proper basis for its imposition of a sentence up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. If we determine that the sentence is not unreasonable, we will affirm. Id. at 439. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the revocation sentence is not unreasonable, let alone plainly so. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We 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.
