US v. Fletcher, No. 06-4457 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4457 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BARRY FLETCHER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:00-cr-00227) Submitted: November 15, 2006 Decided: November 20, 2006 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Richard Gregory McVey, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Barry Fletcher appeals the district court s order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-one months imprisonment. Fletcher s attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there were no meritorious issues to raise on appeal, but arguing that Fletcher s sentence was unreasonable. Fletcher was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Because our review of the record discloses no meritorious issues and no error by the district court, we affirm the revocation order and the sentence imposed. As recently discussed in United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006), we review a sentence imposed upon the revocation of supervised release to determine whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. Because Fletcher s sentence was within the applicable statutory maximum and the recommended guideline range, and because it was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable, we find it was not plainly unreasonable. In imposing this sentence, the court specifically noted that Fletcher had already been given a second chance to comply with the requirements of supervised release and that the circumstances supervised suggested release in that the Fletcher future. could In not comply addition, the with court considered the time Fletcher spent in state prison on the charge - 2 - that served as a partial basis for the revocation. Thus, we find that the the district court adequately considered policies underlying the supervised release statute, the various applicable sentencing factors, and the available sentencing options.* Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform her client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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 * Fletcher asserts that supervised release was intended to ease the defendant s transition into the community and provide rehabilitation and that Fletcher s sentence was not designed to serve this goal. However, the relevant statutes make clear that, when imposing a sentence after revocation of supervised release, a court should consider, not only training and treatment, but also the defendant s history, the nature and circumstances of the offense, the need to protect the public from further crimes, and the need to deter criminal conduct, among other factors. See 18 U.S.C.A. ยง 3553(a), 3583(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006). - 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.
