US v. John Cabral, Jr., No. 12-4622 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4622 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHN CABRAL, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (7:08-cr-00052-BR-1) Submitted: February 5, 2013 Decided: February 27, 2013 Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Cabral, Jr., appeals the twenty-four month statutory maximum sentence imposed by the district court upon revocation of his term of supervised release. On appeal, Cabral contends was that the unreasonable. * district court s sentence procedurally 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 (internal quotation marks omitted). We must unreasonable. the procedural first decide Id. at 438. and the sentence is In doing so, we follow generally substantive reviewing original sentences. whether Id. considerations employed in A sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court has considered the advisory * Cabral does not challenge the substantive reasonableness of the sentence 2 policy statements contained in Chapter 7 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) 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. If we determine that the sentence is not unreasonable, we will affirm. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. Applying our deferential standard of review, we conclude that Cabral s sentence was not unreasonable, much less plainly so. defendant A revocation sentence is designed not to punish the for the crime underlying the supervised release revocation but to punish the defendant s failure to abide by the terms of his supervised release. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438; USSG ch. 7, pt. A, introductory cmt. 3(b) (2012). Moreover, the district court has broad discretion to . . . impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. 439 (internal quotation marks omitted). Crudup, 461 F.3d at We conclude that the district court did not abuse its broad discretion in imposing the statutory maximum of twenty-four months imprisonment upon revocation of Cabral s term of supervised release. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument 3 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4