US v. Henrry Lozano, No. 14-4178 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4178 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. HENRRY ARITA LOZANO, Henry Losano, a/k/a Jerlin Matamoros-Sosa, a/k/a Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:09-cr-00146-HEH-1) Submitted: October 21, 2014 Decided: November 12, 2014 Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Mary E. Maguire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Henrry Arita Lozano appeals his sentence of eighteen months’ imprisonment imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. Lozano’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the sentence imposed is plainly unreasonable. Lozano was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he did not file one. The Government did not file a brief. We affirm. We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within the statutory maximum and not plainly unreasonable. 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, We first consider whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Id. at 438. In this initial inquiry, our review concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion is more deferential than reasonableness review accorded to Guidelines sentences. States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). the United Only if we find the sentence unreasonable must we decide whether it is plainly so. Id. at 657; see also United States v. Bennett, 698 F.3d 194, 200 (4th Cir. 2012). While a district court must explain its sentence, the court “need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when 2 imposing a post-conviction sentence.” United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). “A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon States v. Webb, revocation 738 of F.3d supervised 638, 640 (4th release.” Cir. United 2013). In exercising such discretion the court “is guided by the Chapter Seven policy statements in the federal Guidelines manual, as well as the statutory factors applicable to revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e).” Id. at 641. “Chapter Seven instructs that, in fashioning a revocation sentence, ‘the court should sanction primarily the defendant’s breach of trust, while taking into account, to a limited degree, the seriousness of the underlying violation and the criminal history of the violator.’” Id. (quoting U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ch. 7, pt. A(3)(b) (2012)). The record reflects that in imposing the sentence, the district court properly focused on Lozano’s breach of trust. The court also cited the need for deterrence, considered the applicable explained the chosen sentence, which was within the statutory maximum. We therefore sentencing conclude factors, that and the adequately sentence was not plainly unreasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 3 We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Lozano, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme review. If Lozano Court of requests the that United a States petition be for further filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Lozano. 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 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.
