US v. DeShawn McBeth
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DESHAWN MCBETH, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:08-cr-01162-PMD-1)
June 30, 2009
July 17, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Nicholas Bianchi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Deshawn McBeth appeals the district court's judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twentyfour months' imprisonment. McBeth's counsel filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the sentence, which is above the policy statement range but within the statutory maximum, is plainly unreasonable.
McBeth was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he did not file one. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court sufficiently considered the advisory policy
statement range of eight to fourteen months and the statutory sentencing factors in imposing a sentence above the policy
statement range but within the statutory maximum set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2006). We therefore conclude 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). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment revoking McBeth's supervised release and imposing a twenty-four month term of imprisonment. This court requires that counsel inform McBeth, in writing, of 2
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If McBeth requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof We dispense with oral argument because
was served on McBeth.
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process. AFFIRMED
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?