US v. Roscoe Abell

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4100 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROSCOE ABELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:97-cr-00319-FDW-1) Submitted: September 23, 2010 Decided: November 10, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James S. Weidner, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF JAMES S. WEIDNER, JR., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roscoe imposed release. by the Abell appeals court the twenty-four revoking month his sentence district after supervised Abell's counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), noting no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the sentence imposed was plainly unreasonable. Abell was advised of his right to file a Finding no pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. error, we affirm. We supervised review release a to sentence ensure imposed that upon it is revocation not of plainly unreasonable. Cir. 2010). United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th The first the step in this is review requires us to determine whether sentence unreasonable. United "This posture States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). initial inquiry takes a more `deferential appellate concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion' than reasonableness review for guidelines sentences." United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439). Only if the sentence is unreasonable do we proceed to the second step of the analysis to determine whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. A procedurally supervised reasonable if release the 2 Id. at 438-39. sentence considered is the revocation court district advisory policy statement range based upon Chapter Seven of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors applicable to supervised release revocation. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); is a Crudup, 461 F.3d if at 438-40. district defendant statutory See a Such sentence stated receive substantively basis for reasonable concluding up to the the court should proper the sentence imposed, the maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. "A court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a post-conviction sentence, but it still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed." F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court sufficiently considered the advisory policy Thompson, 595 statement range of thirty to thirty-seven months' imprisonment and the statutory policy sentencing statement factors range in imposing within the a sentence statutory below the and maximum set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West Supp. 2010). We therefore conclude that the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release is not unreasonable, much less plainly so. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, 3 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 filing would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional would process. AFFIRMED 4