US v. Kendal White

Filing 920090203

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4701

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENDAL J. WHITE, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:04-cr-00041-PMD-1)

Submitted:

December 16, 2008

Decided:

February 3, 2009

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Eric John Klumb, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Kendal J. White was convicted by a magistrate judge of violating prison. his probation and was sentenced to ten months in

White appealed to the district court, which affirmed. His attorney has filed a brief 386 U.S. erred 738 in (1967), revoking

White now appeals to this court. pursuant to Anders whether v. the

California, district

questioning

court

probation and imposing sentence but concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. White was advised of his right We

to file a pro se brief but did not file such a brief. affirm.

"[W]e review probation revocation sentences . . . to determine if they are plainly unreasonable." Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). United States v. This requires us to

first determine if the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable; if it is not unreasonable, our analysis ends, and we affirm. Only if the sentence is procedurally or

substantively unreasonable will we consider whether it is also plainly unreasonable. 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). A sentence imposed upon revocation of probation is United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433,

procedurally reasonable if the sentencing court considered the policy statements set forth in Chapter 7 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors 2

that

it

is

permitted 461

to

consider. at 440.

See

18 Such

U.S.C. a

§ 3583(e) is

(2006);

Crudup,

F.3d

sentence

substantively reasonable if the sentencing court stated a proper basis for concluding that the defendant should Id. receive the

sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum.

Here, the magistrate judge determined after a hearing that White had committed the probation violations as charged. Revocation of probation and imposition of a term of imprisonment were therefore authorized. White committed Grade C See 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a)(2) (2006). probation violations, see USSG

§ 7B1.1(a)(3), p.s., and his criminal history category was III. His recommended Guidelines range was 5-11 months, see USSG

§ 7B1.4(a), p.s. well as the

The magistrate judge considered this range as § 3553(a) conclude sentencing his factors was when not

applicable We

imposing

sentence.

that

sentence

unreasonable. We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders, and we find no

meritorious issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm.

This

court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, review. but If the client requests such a that a petition would be be

counsel

believes

that

petition

frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw 3

from representation.

Counsel's motion must state that a copy of We dispense with oral

the motion was served on the client.

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

4