US v. Juan Jaramillo-Jimenez, No. 13-4872 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4872 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JUAN JARAMILLO-JIMENEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00342-CCE-1) Submitted: April 28, 2014 Decided: May 13, 2014 Before KING, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Angela H. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Juan judgment and Jaramillo-Jimenez commitment release was revoked. order appeals entered the district after his court s supervised The court sentenced Jaramillo-Jimenez to serve eighteen months imprisonment consecutive to the sentence he was serving at the time. substantively unreasonable. He contends that the sentence was Finding no error, we affirm. The district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revoking a defendant s supervised release. United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). We will affirm the sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). United States v. Crudup, 461 We first consider whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. 738 F.3d at 640. A revocation sentence is Webb, procedurally reasonable if the district court considered the advisory policy statement range and the ยง 3553(a) supervised release revocation. sentence stated is a substantively proper basis factors Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-40. reasonable for applicable if concluding the the district defendant 440. Only substantively if a sentence unreasonable will sentence is plainly unreasonable. 2 is we found then should procedurally decide Id. at 439. A court receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. at to whether Id. or the In ordering the sentence at issue, the district court properly considered Jaramillo-Jimenez unwillingness to abide by the terms of supervision, see United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 655 (4th Cir. 2007), and the violations of supervised release. Because the court stated a need to deter further See Webb, 738 F.3d at 642. proper basis for the consecutive eighteen month sentence, we find no error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment and commitment order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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.
