US v. Marnae Snead, No. 14-4628 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4628 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARNAE DEVON SNEAD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cr-00297-REP-1) Submitted: July 29, 2015 Before KEENAN and Circuit Judge. HARRIS, Decided: Circuit Judges, September 3, 2015 and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt, Appellate Attorney, Mary E. Maguire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Olivia L. Norman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marnae Devon Snead appeals the eighteen-month term of imprisonment imposed by the district court upon revocation of his term of supervised release. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Snead’s sentence is plainly unreasonable. Snead was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not filed one. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. The sentence district after court revoking has broad a discretion defendant’s to impose supervised a release. United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). Thus, we assume “a deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of [that] discretion.” United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). In reviewing a revocation sentence, we must “first decide whether the sentence is unreasonable.” so, “we follow generally the Id. at 438. procedural and In doing substantive considerations” employed in reviewing original sentences. Id. A sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court has considered the advisory policy statements contained in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines and 2 the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, id. at 439, explanation for the sentence chosen. 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). and has provided some United States v. Thompson, A sentence is substantively reasonable if the court states a proper basis for concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. Only if we find a sentence to be procedurally or substantively unreasonable will we consider whether the sentence is “plainly” unreasonable. Id. at 439. Upon review, we conclude that the revocation sentence is procedurally indicate unreasonable that it because considered the the district applicable court advisory did not policy statement range from Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines. Because Snead did not object to the district court’s omission, we review for plain error. 170, 172 (4th Cir. 2015). United States v. Lemon, 777 F.3d To establish plain error, Snead must demonstrate that (1) the district court committed an error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights. Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121, 1126 (2013). “To demonstrate that a sentencing error affected his substantial rights, [the defendant] would have to show that, absent the error, a different sentence might have been imposed.” United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 273 (4th Cir. 2010). We conclude that Snead has not demonstrated that, had the court 3 more thoroughly considered the applicable policy statement range resulting from his Grade B supervised release might have received a more favorable sentence. violation, he Accordingly, we find no reversible procedural error. Substantively, the court stated a proper basis for imposing the sentence, which fell within the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2012); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439 (stating that court has “broad discretion to . . . impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Given the facts of this case, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its broad discretion. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This Court requires that counsel inform Snead, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Snead requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that counsel may in move representation. and legal this a petition Court for would leave to be frivolous, withdraw from Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Snead. facts such We dispense with oral argument because the conclusions are 4 adequately presented in the materials before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
