US v. Jesse Kessinger, No. 14-4443 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4443 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JESSE LEE KESSINGER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:09-cr-00035-1) Submitted: October 9, 2014 Decided: October 17, 2014 Before SHEDD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory J. Campbell, CAMPBELL LAW OFFICE, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Candace Haley Bunn, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jesse Lee Kessinger appeals the six-month sentence of imprisonment imposed by the district court after revocation of his supervised release. Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Kessinger s sentence is plainly unreasonable. Although notified filed of his right supplemental brief. to do so, Kessinger has not a We affirm. A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release. v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). United States We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. Id. (quoting United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006)). In making this determination, we first consider whether the sentence imposed is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Id. Only if we so find will we . . . then decide whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. Here, Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. the district court correctly calculated Kessinger s advisory policy statement range and considered the 18 U.S.C. ยง 3553(a) (2012) factors applicable to sentencing upon revocation of supervised release. The district court adequately explained the basis for Kessinger s sentence. 2 also Thus, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Kessinger. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We revoking court therefore Kessinger s imposed. Kessinger, in affirm the supervised This writing, Court of district release and court s the requires right the that petition to judgment sentence counsel Court of the United States for further review. the inform the Supreme If Kessinger requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this Court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Kessinger. 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.
