US v. Anthony Murphy

Filing 920090218

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4250

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY MURPHY, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge (3:05-cr-00275-REP-1)

Submitted:

February 4, 2009

Decided:

February 18, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Carolyn V. Grady, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Anthony imposed appeal, upon Murphy the appeals the of that twenty-four his the supervised sentence month sentence On

revocation asserts

release. is

counsel

plainly

unreasonable because the district court failed to consider the advisory sentencing guidelines range or the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) affirm. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court sufficiently considered the advisory sentencing guideline range of eight to fourteen months and the statutory sentencing factors in imposing a sentence within the statutory maximum set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). We therefore find sentencing factors. Finding no reversible error, we

that the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release is not plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Crudup, 461

F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006) (providing standard). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2