US v. Michael Winebush

Filing 920090420

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-5258 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL WINEBUSH, Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?