US v. Anthony Murphy, No. 08-4250 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4250 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY MURPHY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge (3:05-cr-00275-REP-1) Submitted: February 4, 2009 Decided: February 18, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Carolyn V. Grady, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Anthony imposed Murphy upon appeal, the counsel appeals the revocation asserts of that twenty-four his month supervised the sentence release. sentence is On plainly unreasonable because the district court failed to consider the advisory sentencing guidelines range or the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) sentencing factors. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court sufficiently considered the advisory sentencing guideline range of eight to fourteen months and the statutory sentencing factors in imposing a sentence within the statutory maximum set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). We therefore find that the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release is not plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006) (providing standard). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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.