US v. Michael Winebush

Filing 920090420

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-5258

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL WINEBUSH, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (1:00-cr-00161-1)

Submitted:

April 7, 2009

Decided:

April 20, 2009

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Michael Winebush appeals the district court's judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a sentence of ten months of imprisonment, release. On followed appeal, by forty-eight asserts months that of the

supervised

Winebush

sentence imposed by the district court is unreasonable. no error, we affirm.

Finding

We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed statutory

range and not plainly unreasonable. 461 F.3d 433, 437-40 (4th Cir. 2006). analysis is a determination Id. at 438. of

United States v. Crudup, The first step in this the sentence court of was must the and court

whether the

unreasonable. consider sentencing factors the

While in

district

policy

statements and the

Chapter

Seven

guidelines, to

statutory

requirements "`the

applicable

revocation

sentences,

ultimately has broad discretion to revoke its previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum.'" Id. at 439 (quoting United States v. Lewis, 424 F.3d 239, 244 (2d Cir. 2005)) (internal quotation marks omitted). We sentence is have reviewed the and record and conclude that the We

procedurally

substantively

reasonable.

therefore affirm the judgment.

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 2

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED

3