US v. Michael Winebush, No. 08-5258 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-5258 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL WINEBUSH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (1:00-cr-00161-1) Submitted: April 7, 2009 Decided: April 20, 2009 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Winebush appeals the district court s judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a sentence of ten months of imprisonment, supervised release. followed On by appeal, forty-eight Winebush months of that the asserts sentence imposed by the district court is unreasonable. Finding no error, we affirm. We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within range and not plainly unreasonable. the is a unreasonable. consider the sentencing factors determination Id. at policy 438. and to the The first step in this whether While statements guidelines, applicable of the in the sentence district Chapter statutory revocation statutory United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437-40 (4th Cir. 2006). analysis prescribed was court Seven must of the requirements and sentences, the court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke its previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. Id. at 439 (quoting United States v. Lewis, 424 F.3d 239, 244 (2d Cir. 2005)) (internal quotation marks omitted). We sentence have reviewed is procedurally the and record and substantively therefore affirm the judgment. conclude that reasonable. the We We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 2 in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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.
