US v. Kendal White

Filing 920090203

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4701 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENDAL J. WHITE, Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?