US v. Marqueis Longus, No. 08-4534 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4534 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARQUEIS D. LONGUS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:04-cr-00254-REP-1) Submitted: October 20, 2008 Decided: November 24, 2008 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Paul G. Gill, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marqueis D. Longus appeals the district court s judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a sentence of twenty-four months imprisonment. sentence is plainly unreasonable. Longus alleges that his For the following reasons, we affirm. We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is not plainly unreasonable. States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. United 2006). The sentence first must be assessed for reasonableness, follow[ing] generally the procedural and substantive considerations that we employ in our review of original sentences[,] . . . with some necessary modifications to take into account the unique nature of supervised release revocation sentences. Id. at 438-39; see United States v. Finley, 531 F.3d 288, 294 (4th Cir. 2008) ( In applying the determine, States, plainly using 128 S. the Ct. unreasonable instructions 586, 597 standard, given (2007)], in we [v. Gall whether a first United sentence is unreasonable. ). We Crudup, 461 procedurally affirm F.3d or at a sentence 439. that Only substantively if is a unreasonable 2 not unreasonable. sentence will is we found decide whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. * 531 F.3d at 294. Id.; see Finley, Although the district court must consider the Chapter 7 policy statements and the requirements of 18 U.S.C. ยงยง 3553(a), 3583 (2006), the [district] court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke its previous sentence and impose a Crudup, 461 term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. F.3d at 439 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We have thoroughly reviewed Longus sentence and find it to be procedurally and substantively reasonable. Based on this conclusion, it necessarily follows that Longus sentence is not plainly unreasonable. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440; see Finley, 531 F.3d at 297. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment revoking Longus supervised release and imposing a twenty-four month prison term. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * [F]or purposes of determining whether an unreasonable sentence is plainly unreasonable, plain is synonymous with clear or, equivalently, obvious. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439 (internal quotation marks, citation, and alteration omitted). 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.
