US v. Jonathan Long, No. 16-4335 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4335 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JONATHAN C. LONG, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (4:10-cr-00067-RBS-TEM-1) Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 20, 2016 Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, Appellate Attorney, Suzanne V. Katchmar, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Cross, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jonathan C. Long appeals the district court’s order revoking supervised release and imposing 18 months’ imprisonment and 42 months’ supervised release. Long’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning the reasonableness of the sentence and whether the district court erred by determining that Long had a Grade B violation. Long filed a pro se supplemental brief claiming that the sentence was unreasonable. brief. The Government did not file a We affirm. “A district sentence has imposing a We will statutory range sentence and is not supervised when States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). revocation of discretion United a revocation broad release.” affirm upon court that “is plainly within the prescribed unreasonable.” States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 440 (4th Cir. 2006). consider whether the sentence substantively unreasonable, considerations employed sentences. Id. at in 438. imposed is applying our review Only if we We first procedurally the of United same general original criminal find the sentence unreasonable will we consider whether it is “plainly” so. at 439. 2 and Id. A supervised release reasonable if the statements contained revocation district in sentence court Chapter is considered Seven of the procedurally the policy Sentencing Guidelines and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors applicable to revocation sentences. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-39; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012). The district court must also provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). “Regardless of whether the district court imposes an above, below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it must place on the record an ‘individualized assessment’ based on the particular facts of the case before it.” Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007)). 2009) United States v. (quoting Gall v. “A court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a post-conviction sentence, but it still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed.” Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks omitted). We find no error with the district court’s determination that Long had at least one Grade B violation. See United States v. Wynn, 786 F.3d 339, 343 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 276 (2015). We further conclude that the sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. 3 In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. court We therefore affirm the district court’s order. requires that counsel inform Long, in writing, of This the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Long requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in and materials legal before court for leave to withdraw from Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Long. facts this We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the 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.
