US v. Tina Belcastro, No. 15-4185 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4185 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TINA BELCASTRO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00056-IMK-JSK-5) Submitted: September 10, 2015 Before WYNN and Circuit Judge. THACKER, Circuit Decided: Judges, September 22, 2015 and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Kristen M. Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tina Belcastro appeals from the revocation of her supervised release and the imposition of an eight-month prison sentence. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. Belcastro was advised of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief but she did not file one. The Government declined to file a brief. After a careful consideration of the entire record, we affirm. The sentence release. 2013). after has revoking we issues States (internal court broad a discretion defendant’s term to of impose a supervised United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. Thus, concerning United district v. assume of fact Crudup, quotation “a marks deferential and 461 the appellate exercise F.3d 433, 439 omitted). We of discretion.” (4th begin Cir. our “decid[ing] whether the sentence is unreasonable.” posture 2006) review by Id. at 438. In doing so, we follow “generally the procedural and substantive considerations” employed in reviewing original sentences. A supervised release reasonable if the statements contained revocation district in court Chapter 7 sentence has of is considered the Id. procedurally the Guidelines policy and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, Crudup, 461 F.3d 2 at 439, and has adequately explained the sentence chosen, although the court need not explain the sentence in as much detail as when imposing the original sentence, United States v. Thompson, sentence 595 is F.3d 544, 547 substantively (4th Cir. reasonable 2010). if the A revocation court states a proper basis for concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. F.3d at 440. Crudup, 461 Only if we find a sentence to be procedurally or substantively unreasonable will we consider whether the sentence is “plainly” so. Id. at 439. Here, the district court court explicitly considered the Guidelines range Belcastro’s and repeated the statutory violations factors endangered and noted the public illustrated her failure to submit to supervision. considered the essentially in statements agreement of and both which reasoning for a lower sentence. and The court parties, provided that which no were request or The court sentenced Belcastro to the term agreed to by the parties, which was also the low end of the undisputed district court Belcastro. Guidelines did not range. abuse its We conclude discretion in that the sentencing See United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015) (standard of review). In record accordance and have with found Anders, no we have meritorious 3 reviewed issues the for entire appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, review. but frivolous, If counsel then the client believes counsel may withdraw from representation. requests that move such this that a a petition petition court for be would be leave to 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
