Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 10-4455
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon.
James P. Jones, District
Judge. (1:03-cr-00104-jpj-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
December 6, 2010
PER CURIAM:
Karen Francisco Martin appeals from the revocation of
her supervised release.
Grade
violations,
and
(2)
whether
the
court
erred
in
Her supervised
supervised release.
appeal,
for
under
Martin
committing
Virginia
only
contests
her
crime,
e.g.,
another
law.
We
review
the
two
Grade
prescription
district
courts
1995),
violation
noting
of
that
condition
district
of
2
court
need
supervised
only
release
find
by
2010).
district
Here,
courts
engaging
in
we
find
findings
no
that
prescription
abuse
Martin
fraud.
of
discretion
violated
Thus,
state
we
in
the
law
by
affirm
these
revocations.
Next, Martin contests her sentence.
We will affirm a
the
prescribed
unreasonable.
(4th
Cir.
statutory
range
and
not
plainly
2006).
In
determining
whether
sentence
is
of
discretion
revocation sentences.
656 (4th Cir. 2007).
or
substantively
plainly so.
than
reasonableness
review
for
non-
unreasonable
must
we
decide
whether
it
is
Id. at 657.
under
18
U.S.C.A
3553(a),
3583(e)
(West
2000
&
its
reasons
for
sentencing
her
outside
the
advisory
The court
had
failed
to
ensure
her
compliance
with
the
terms
of
her
allow
Martin
abuse problem.
not
find
better
chance
(JA 126-30).
that
address
her
substance
Martins
substantively unreasonable.
to
sentence
was
procedurally
or
F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010) (noting that a district courts
statement of reasons for a revocation sentence need not be as
detailed or specific as other sentences).
Accordingly,
release
argument
violations
as
the
we
affirm
and
her
facts
and
Martins
sentence.
legal
We
Grade
dispense
contentions
are
supervised
with
oral
adequately