US v. Adrian Gambrell, No. 12-4864 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4864 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ADRIAN GAMBRELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:03-cr-01092-HMH-6) Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: May 23, 2013 Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIUM: Adrian Gambrell appeals the district court s revocation of his term of supervised release and his resulting sentence of sixty months of imprisonment. On appeal, counsel for Gambrell has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues but asking whether procedurally erroneous. the district court s sentence was Gambrell 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. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439 40 (4th Cir. 2006). We first determine whether the sentence is at unreasonable. reasonable if Guidelines range Id. the 438. district and the 18 A court sentence considered U.S.C. § 3553(a) applicable to supervised release revocation. sentence stated is a substantively proper basis reasonable for is concluding if the procedurally Sentencing (2006) factors Id. at 438 40. the the district defendant court should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. at 440. A Id. We take a more deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion for revocation sentences than for review of sentences imposed after a criminal 2 conviction. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude that Gambrell s revocation sentence is not unreasonable, much less plainly so. The district Guidelines court range, correctly considered Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439 40. calculated relevant the applicable § 3553(a) factors, explained its reasons for sentencing Gambrell in excess of his 30-37 months advisory Guidelines sentencing range, and imposed a sentence within the statutory maximum. We have reviewed the entire record pursuant to our obligation under Anders, and we discern no meritorious issue for appeal. Accordingly, supervised release we and affirm his the revocation sentence. This of Gambrell s court requires counsel to inform Gambrell, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Gambrell requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes such petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Gambrell. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials 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.
