US v. Stafford Berry, No. 12-4658 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4658 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STAFFORD CALHOUN BERRY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:07-cr-00353-TLW-1) Submitted: January 4, 2013 Decided: January 11, 2013 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Stafford Calhoun Berry appeals the district court s revocation of his term of supervised release and sentence of six months imprisonment after he admitted or failed to contest six violations of the terms of his release. On appeal, counsel for Berry filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting unreasonable. that the sentence is not plainly Berry has not exercised his right to file a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm. We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within the statutory range and not plainly unreasonable. 439-40 (4th sentence Cir. is procedurally Guidelines United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 2006). We first unreasonable. reasonable range and if Id. the the 18 determine at 438. district U.S.C. sentence stated is a substantively proper basis ยง 3553(a) reasonable for A court applicable to supervised release revocation. concluding if whether sentence considered (2006) the district defendant the A court should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. at 440. is factors Id. at 438-40. the the Id. We will tak[e] a more deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than reasonableness conviction]. review for . . . sentences [imposed after United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th 2 Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). If the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable, we then decide whether it is plainly unreasonable. plainly unreasonable settled law. if it . . Id. at 657. . run[s] A sentence is afoul of clearly United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 548 (4th Cir. 2010). We conclude that Berry s revocation sentence is not unreasonable, much less plainly so. The district court correctly calculated the applicable Guidelines range, considered the applicable Berry s standards, sentencing explained request, and within the appropriate range. its selected reasons a for sentence denying squarely Moreover, Berry agreed to the selected sentence in exchange for the Government s agreement to not pursue additional violations. sentence is not unreasonable. We thus conclude that Berry s We have reviewed the entire record pursuant to our obligation under Anders, and we discern no meritorious issue for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials We dispense with legal contentions are before this and court 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.
