US v. Jonathan Lamb, No. 13-4595 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4595 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JONATHAN MAURICE LAMB, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:11-cr-00235-BO-1) Submitted: April 29, 2014 Decided: May 6, 2014 Before AGEE, KEENAN, 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Jonathan Maurice Lamb pleaded guilty to making a false statement to a licensed firearms U.S.C. § 924(a)(1) (2012). dealer, in violation of 18 The district court sentenced Lamb to five years of probation in February 2013. Lamb subsequently pleaded guilty to violating the terms of his probation and the district court sentenced Lamb to sixty months of imprisonment. Lamb has appealed, arguing that the variant sentence imposed upon him is procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the district court improperly considered his need educational or vocational training while incarcerated. for Finding no error, we affirm. Upon finding a probation violation, the district court may revoke probation and resentence the defendant to any sentence within the statutory maximum for the original offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a) (2006); United States v. Schaefer, 120 F.3d 505, 507 (4th Cir. 1997). [W]e review probation revocation sentences, release like supervised revocation determine if they are plainly unreasonable. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). sentence for unreasonableness, sentences, to United States v. We first assess the follow[ing] generally the procedural and substantive considerations that we employ in our review of original sentences. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). Only if we determine that a 2 sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable will we decide whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. [18 U.S.C.] Section 3582(a) Id. [(2012)] precludes sentencing courts from imposing or lengthening a prison term to promote an offender s rehabilitation. Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382, 2391 (2011); see also United States v. Bennett, 698 F.3d 194, 197-98 (4th Cir. 2012) (court may not consider need for rehabilitation in imposing revocation sentence). Here, Lamb did not object at the revocation hearing on the grounds asserted here, and we therefore review this issue for plain error. Bennett, 698 F.3d at 199. To establish plain error, Lamb must demonstrate that (1) the district court erred, (2) the error was rights. plain, and (3) the error affected his substantial Id. at 200 (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993)). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude sentence that substantively the reasonable; imposed it is follows, both procedurally therefore, that and the sentence is not plainly unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in 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.
