Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 30 views

    United States v. Pone, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment revoking Ronshon Pone's supervised release and sentencing him to 24 months' imprisonment. While the district court provided no explanation for the sentence, it was within the prescribed statutory range and was not plainly unreasonable. The Court of Appeals found no clear or obvious error in the sentence imposed by the district court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Pone, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    30 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment revoking Ronshon Pone's supervised release and sentencing him to 24 months' imprisonment. While the district court provided no explanation for the sentence, it was within the prescribed statutory range and was not plainly unreasonable. The Court of Appeals found no clear or obvious error in the sentence imposed by the district court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-04-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-4979

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment revoking Ronshon Pone's supervised release and sentencing him to 24 months' imprisonment. While the district court provided no explanation for the sentence, it was within the prescribed statutory range and was not plainly unreasonable. The Court of Appeals found no clear or obvious error in the sentence imposed by the district court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    30 views3 pages

    United States v. Pone, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment revoking Ronshon Pone's supervised release and sentencing him to 24 months' imprisonment. While the district court provided no explanation for the sentence, it was within the prescribed statutory range and was not plainly unreasonable. The Court of Appeals found no clear or obvious error in the sentence imposed by the district court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 07-4979

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    RONSHON PONE,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior
    District Judge. (7:02-cr-00091-BR)

    Submitted:

    April 9, 2008

    Decided:

    April 18, 2008

    Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, 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. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M.
    Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys,
    Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIUM:
    Ronshon

    Tominik

    Pone

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to


    twenty-four months imprisonment.

    Pone contends that the sentence

    is plainly unreasonable.
    We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of
    supervised release if it is within the prescribed statutory range
    and is not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d
    433, 437-39 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1813 (2007).
    In

    making

    this

    determination,

    we

    first

    consider

    whether

    sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable.


    438-39.

    the

    Id. at

    Only if a sentence is found to be unreasonable will this

    court determine if it is plainly so.

    Id. at 439.

    Although the

    district court must consider the Chapter Seven policy statements,


    U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Ch. 7, Pt. B, as well as the
    statutory requirements and factors applicable to parole revocation
    sentences under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) & 3583 (2000), the district
    court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke the previous
    sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory
    maximum.

    Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-39.


    Although the district court provided no explanation for

    its sentence, it is undisputed that the district court properly


    calculated the applicable range and imposed a sentence within that
    range.

    We find nothing clearly or obviously erroneous in the

    - 2 -

    sentence imposed by the district court.

    See United States v.

    Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 657 (4th Cir. 2007) (defining a plainly
    unreasonable sentence as one that is clearly or obviously
    erroneous).
    Accordingly, we affirm the district courts judgment. We
    dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
    are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 3 -

    You might also like