US v. Yvonne Ash, No. 16-4040 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4040 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. YVONNE DENISE ASH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, Chief District Judge. (3:13-cr-00062-2) Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 28, 2016 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glen D. Conway, CONWAY LAW OFFICE, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellant. Carol A. Casto, Acting United States Attorney, Joseph F. Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Yvonne Denise Ash appeals the 21-month sentence imposed by the district court upon revocation of her supervised release. On appeal, Ash asserts that her sentence is plainly unreasonable because it is longer than necessary to achieve the goals of supervised release. “A district We affirm. court has broad discretion when sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). imposing a United States We will affirm a sentence if it is within the applicable statutory maximum and not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 494 (2015). “Only if a revocation sentence is unreasonable must we assess whether it is plainly so.” Ash raises Id. no procedural challenge to her sentence. A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court states a proper basis for concluding that the defendant should maximum. 2006). receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 440 (4th Cir. Here, when considering the applicable sentencing factors and imposing sentence, the district court fairly weighed Ash’s prior supervised release violations, history of substance abuse, and her inability to conform to the conditions of supervised release, all of which relate 2 to Ash’s history and characteristics. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), 3583(e) (2012). Finally, Ash fails to rebut the presumption of reasonableness afforded her 21-month sentence that falls within the Sentencing Guidelines’ policy statement range. See Webb, 738 F.3d at 642. We is conclude that Ash’s sentence not unreasonable and, therefore, not plainly so. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.
