Filed: Mar. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4749 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ZEE ZEE ZELAZURRO, Defendant - Appellant. No. 14-4752 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ZEE ZEE ZELAZURRO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (3:06-cr-00561-MBS-1; 4:08-cr-01076-RBH-1) Submitted: February 9, 2015 Decided: March
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4749 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ZEE ZEE ZELAZURRO, Defendant - Appellant. No. 14-4752 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ZEE ZEE ZELAZURRO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (3:06-cr-00561-MBS-1; 4:08-cr-01076-RBH-1) Submitted: February 9, 2015 Decided: March ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4749
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ZEE ZEE ZELAZURRO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-4752
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ZEE ZEE ZELAZURRO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior
District Judge. (3:06-cr-00561-MBS-1; 4:08-cr-01076-RBH-1)
Submitted: February 9, 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James P. Rogers, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United
States Attorney, Julius Ness Richardson, Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Zee Zee Zelazurro appeals from the district court’s
judgments revoking his supervised release and imposing
concurrent fifteen-month sentences. On appeal, Zelazurro
contends that his sentence is procedurally and substantively
unreasonable. We affirm.
“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a
sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” United
States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). Accordingly,
in examining a revocation sentence, we “take[] a more
deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the
exercise of discretion than reasonableness review for
[G]uidelines sentences.” United States v. Moulden,
478 F.3d
652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). We
will affirm a revocation sentence that falls within the
statutory maximum, unless we find the sentence to be “plainly
unreasonable.” United States v. Crudup,
461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th
Cir. 2006). In reviewing a revocation sentence, we first
determine “whether the sentence is unreasonable,” using the same
general analysis employed to review original sentences.
Id. at
438. Only if we find a sentence to be procedurally or
substantively unreasonable will we determine whether the
sentence is “plainly” so.
Id. at 439.
3
A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if
the district court has considered the applicable 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2012) factors and the policy statements contained in
Chapter Seven of the Guidelines. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. The
district court also must provide an explanation of its chosen
sentence, although this explanation “need not be as detailed or
specific” as is required for an original sentence. United
States v. Thompson,
595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). It may
be possible for this court to evaluate from “[t]he context
surrounding a district court’s explanation . . . both whether
the court considered the § 3553(a) factors and whether it did so
properly.” United States v. Montes-Pineda,
445 F.3d 375, 381
(4th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Johnson,
445 F.3d
339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006) (explaining that, while sentencing
court must consider statutory factors and explain the sentence,
it need not explicitly reference § 3553(a) or discuss every
factor on record).
Zelazurro argues that the district court failed to
consider the § 3553(a) factors and, in particular, did not take
into account the nature and circumstances of the violations
which all occurred within a one-month period. However, the
record shows that the court imposed the fifteen-month terms of
imprisonment based upon Zelazurro’s continued disregard for the
court’s authority. The court also found that his “excuses” were
4
insufficient explanation for his repeated violations. Such
reasoning took into account Zelazurro’s history and
characteristics and implicitly considered the need to deter
Zelazurro’s continued noncompliance. These considerations are
among the relevant § 3553(a) factors the court was required to
consider in imposing its revocation sentence. See 18 U.S.C.
§§ 3553(a), 3583(e) (2012). Accordingly, we find that the
district court adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors prior
to imposing sentence.
A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if
the district court states a proper basis for concluding that the
defendant should receive the sentence imposed. Crudup, 461 F.3d
at 440. In addition, an appellate presumption of reasonableness
applies for a within-Guidelines sentence upon revocation of
supervised release. See United States v. Petreikis,
551 F.3d
822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009).
Zelazurro contends that the district court failed to
consider the totality of the circumstances and that his
fifteen-month sentences are greater than necessary to accomplish
the goals of sentencing. We conclude that Zelazurro’s sentences
are substantively reasonable, as he has failed to rebut their
presumed reasonableness. As discussed above, the district court
assessed the totality of the circumstances, including the
applicable § 3553(a) factors, and concluded that a term of
5
imprisonment within the advisory Guidelines range was necessary
given Zelazurro’s repeated violations and failure to conform his
conduct. This conclusion was based on proper sentencing factors
described in § 3553(a), and thus, the sentences were reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm Zelazurro’s sentences. 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
6
