USCA4 Appeal: 24-4145 Doc: 29 Filed: 01/07/2025 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4145

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FRANCISCO REZA, a/k/a Frankie, a/k/a Pancho,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00185-LMB-1)

Submitted: December 12, 2024 Decided: January 7, 2025

Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Salvatore M. Mancina, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Courtney S. Dixon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Sehar F. Sabir, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4145 Doc: 29 Filed: 01/07/2025 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

In 2014, Francisco Reza pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in

violation of

. The district court sentenced Reza to 120 months of

imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release. After his release from

incarceration, Reza’s probation officer sought revocation of his supervised release based

on several violations of the conditions of his supervised release. The district court found

by a preponderance of the evidence that Reza had violated the terms of his supervised

release, revoked Reza’s supervision, and sentenced Reza to 36 months of imprisonment

with no period of supervised release to follow. Reza now appeals, arguing that the

revocation 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,

(4th Cir. 2013). “We will

affirm a revocation sentence so long as it is within the prescribed statutory range and is not

plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Coston,

(4th Cir. 2020) (internal

quotation marks omitted). “First, we determine whether the sentence is unreasonable at

all, procedurally or substantively.”

(internal quotation marks omitted). “If it is not, we

affirm; if it is unreasonable, we determine whether it is plainly so.”

Reza challenges the procedural reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that the

district court failed to sufficiently consider his mitigation arguments in support of a lower

sentence, including his arguments concerning his difficult childhood, his employment

while on supervised release, his substance abuse issues, and a recent change to the

Sentencing Guidelines that would have lowered his original criminal history category. “A

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4145 Doc: 29 Filed: 01/07/2025 Pg: 3 of 4

revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court adequately explains the

chosen sentence after considering the Sentencing Guidelines’ nonbinding Chapter Seven

policy statements and the applicable

(a) factors,”

(internal

quotation marks omitted), and the explanation indicates “that the court considered any

potentially meritorious arguments raised by the parties,” United States v. Patterson,

(4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court

need not tick through § 3553(a)’s every subsection, but its “explanation should provide

some indication (1) that the court considered the § 3553(a) factors with respect to the

particular defendant, and (2) that it has also considered the potentially meritorious

arguments raised by both parties about sentencing.” United States v. Montes-Pineda,

(4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the sentence is not plainly

procedurally unreasonable. The district court sufficiently responded to Reza’s sentencing

arguments, explaining that despite the circumstances that led to his underlying offense, his

supervised release violations were serious, and even though he was working, he started the

violations within a year of his release and continued to engage in violations while the

revocation proceedings were pending. The court further cited the need to protect the public,

as some of Reza’s supervised release violations involved his use of a firearm. The court

also acknowledged Reza’s need for substance abuse treatment, recommending that he

receive treatment while incarcerated because his issues had not been previously addressed.

Moreover, even if Reza’s criminal history category were lowered, the sentence that the

court concluded was appropriate based on all the factors the court cited was within the

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4145 Doc: 29 Filed: 01/07/2025 Pg: 4 of 4

policy statement range for that criminal history category. Based on the court’s explanation

for its sentence, the sentence is not plainly procedurally unreasonable.

Reza also argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the court

focused too much on the danger to the public posed by Reza and sentenced him above the

Government’s recommended sentence. “A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable

if, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the [district] court states an appropriate basis

for concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed.” Coston,

(internal quotation marks omitted). Based on the factors cited by the district court

in imposing the sentence and the circumstances as a whole, we conclude that the revocation

sentence is not substantively unreasonable, much less plainly so.

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before this court and argument would not aide the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4