US v. Amy French, No. 12-4722 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4722 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. AMY FRENCH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00118-1) Submitted: January 4, 2013 Decided: January 16, 2013 Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, Lex A. Coleman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Amy French appeals the nine-month upon revocation of her supervised release. sentence imposed On appeal, French contends that her nine-month sentence is plainly unreasonable. We affirm. We will affirm a sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release if it is within the applicable statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. United Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). * whether a revocation sentence is States v. In determining unreasonable, we follow generally the procedural and substantive considerations used in reviewing original sentences. Id. at 438. Only if we conclude that the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable must we decide whether it is plainly so. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). French s sentence is below the statutory maximum of twenty-four § 3583(e)(3) reasonable months for (2006). because a Class Further, the C the district felony. sentence court See is 18 U.S.C. procedurally considered both the Chapter 7 policy statements and the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West Supp. 2011) factors that it was permitted to consider. * See We decline French s invitation to revisit the plainly unreasonable test established by our decision in Crudup. 2 Crudup, 461 F.3d substantively at 438-40. reasonable, Finally, because the the sentence district is court sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing the sentence, emphasizing the breach of trust that French had committed by coming before violation of the her district supervised court again release after and a previous French s apparent inability to remain in court-mandated drug treatment. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this 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.
