Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 23 views

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Roscoe Abell appealed the 24-month sentence imposed by the district court after revoking his supervised release. 2) The Court of Appeals reviewed to ensure the sentence was not "plainly unreasonable" and found the district court sufficiently considered the advisory policy statement range and statutory sentencing factors. 3) The appellate court concluded the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release was not unreasonable and affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    23 views4 pages
    1) Roscoe Abell appealed the 24-month sentence imposed by the district court after revoking his supervised release. 2) The Court of Appeals reviewed to ensure the sentence was not "plainly unreasonable" and found the district court sufficiently considered the advisory policy statement range and statutory sentencing factors. 3) The appellate court concluded the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release was not unreasonable and affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-11-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-4100

    Original Title

    United States v. Abell, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Roscoe Abell appealed the 24-month sentence imposed by the district court after revoking his supervised release. 2) The Court of Appeals reviewed to ensure the sentence was not "plainly unreasonable" and found the district court sufficiently considered the advisory policy statement range and statutory sentencing factors. 3) The appellate court concluded the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release was not unreasonable and affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    23 views4 pages

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Roscoe Abell appealed the 24-month sentence imposed by the district court after revoking his supervised release. 2) The Court of Appeals reviewed to ensure the sentence was not "plainly unreasonable" and found the district court sufficiently considered the advisory policy statement range and statutory sentencing factors. 3) The appellate court concluded the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release was not unreasonable and affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 09-4100

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ROSCOE ABELL,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
    Frank D. Whitney,
    District Judge. (3:97-cr-00319-FDW-1)

    Submitted:

    September 23, 2010

    Decided:

    November 10, 2010

    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    James S. Weidner, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF JAMES S. WEIDNER, JR.,


    Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Amy Elizabeth Ray,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Roscoe
    imposed

    by

    release.

    Abell

    the

    appeals

    district

    the

    court

    twenty-four

    after

    revoking

    month
    his

    sentence

    supervised

    Abells counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

    California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), noting no meritorious issues


    for appeal, but questioning whether the sentence imposed was
    plainly unreasonable.

    Abell was advised of his right to file a

    pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so.

    Finding no

    error, we affirm.
    We
    supervised

    review

    release

    sentence

    to

    imposed

    ensure

    that

    upon
    it

    is

    revocation
    not

    of

    plainly

    unreasonable.

    United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th

    Cir.

    The

    2010).

    determine

    whether

    first

    step

    the

    in

    sentence

    this
    is

    review

    requires

    unreasonable.

    us

    United

    States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006).


    initial

    inquiry

    takes

    more

    deferential

    appellate

    to

    This
    posture

    concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than


    reasonableness

    review

    for

    guidelines

    sentences.

    United

    States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting
    Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439).

    Only if the sentence is unreasonable

    do we proceed to the second step of the analysis to determine


    whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable.
    A
    procedurally

    supervised
    reasonable

    release
    if

    the
    2

    Id. at 438-39.

    revocation

    district

    court

    sentence

    is

    considered

    the

    advisory policy statement range based upon Chapter Seven of the


    U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual and the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)
    (2006) factors applicable to supervised release revocation.
    18

    U.S.C.

    sentence

    3583(e);

    stated

    is
    a

    receive

    substantively

    proper

    the

    basis

    sentence

    461

    Crudup,

    reasonable

    for

    up

    at

    if

    concluding

    imposed,

    Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.

    F.3d

    to

    438-40.

    the
    the

    the

    See

    Such

    district
    defendant

    statutory

    court
    should

    maximum.

    A court need not be as detailed or

    specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when


    imposing a post-conviction sentence, but it still must provide a
    statement of reasons for the sentence imposed.

    Thompson, 595

    F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks omitted).


    Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
    district

    court

    sufficiently

    considered

    the

    advisory

    policy

    statement range of thirty to thirty-seven months imprisonment


    and

    the

    below

    statutory

    the

    policy

    sentencing
    statement

    factors
    range

    in

    and

    imposing
    within

    the

    sentence
    statutory

    maximum set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. 3583(e)(3) (West Supp. 2010).


    We therefore conclude that the sentence imposed upon revocation
    of supervised release is not unreasonable, much less plainly so.
    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

    courts

    judgment.

    This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing,


    3

    of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States


    for further review.

    If the client requests that a petition be

    filed, but counsel believes that such filing would be frivolous,


    then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
    representation.

    Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof

    was served on the client.


    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal
    before

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy