US v. Manuel Page

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:04-cr-00155-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998710284].. [11-4013]

Appeal: 11-4013

Document: 27

Date Filed: 10/27/2011

Page: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MANUEL L. PAGE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley.
David A. Faber, Senior
District Judge. (5:04-cr-00155-1)

Submitted:

October 11, 2011

Decided:

October 27, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, Christian M. Capece, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. John Lanier
File, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia;
Monica Kaminski Schwartz, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-4013

Document: 27

Date Filed: 10/27/2011

Page: 2 of 4

the

his

PER CURIAM:
Following
Manuel

Page

was

revocation

sentenced

to

of

sixty

supervised

days

of

release,

incarceration,

followed by six months of community confinement, followed by
twenty-four months’ supervised release.
this sentence.

Page did not object to

On appeal, Page’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
Page’s sentence was plainly unreasonable.

Page was notified of

his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed
a

brief.

brief.

The

Government

has

declined

to

file

a

responsive

We affirm.
In

supervised

reviewing
release,

a

sentence

this

court

imposed
“takes

upon

a

more

revocation

of

‘deferential

appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of
discretion’

than

reasonableness

review

for

[G]uidelines

sentences.”

United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th

Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439
(4th

Cir.

2006)).

revocation

of

We

will

supervised

affirm

release

a

sentence

if

it

is

imposed
not

after

plainly

unreasonable.

United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th

Cir.

The

2010).

first

step

in

this

review

requires

determination of whether the sentence is unreasonable.
461

F.3d

at

438.

Only

if

the
2

sentence

is

a

Crudup,

procedurally

or

Appeal: 11-4013

Document: 27

substantively

Date Filed: 10/27/2011

unreasonable

does

Page: 3 of 4

the

inquiry

proceed

to

the

second step of the analysis to determine whether the sentence is
plainly unreasonable.
A

Id. at 438-39.

supervised

procedurally

reasonable

release
if

the

revocation

district

court

sentence

is

considered

the

advisory policy statement range based upon Chapter Seven of the
Sentencing Guidelines and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors
applicable

to

supervised

release

revocation.

See

§ 3583(e) (2006); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-40.

18

U.S.C.

A sentence is

substantively reasonable if the district court stated a proper
basis for concluding the defendant should receive the sentence
Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.

imposed, up to the statutory maximum.

“A court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a
revocation

sentence

as

it

must

be

when

imposing

a

post-

conviction sentence, but it still must provide a statement of
reasons for the sentence imposed.”

Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547

(internal quotation marks omitted).
Page

argues

that

his

sentence

is

greater

necessary to accomplish the goals of supervised release.
disagree.

than
We

The district court adequately explained the sentence

imposed, and we do not find that the sentence was any greater
than necessary.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
3

Appeal: 11-4013

Document: 27

Date Filed: 10/27/2011

Page: 4 of 4

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
court

requires

that

counsel

inform

Page,

in

writing,

of

This
the

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Page requests that a petition be filed, but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Page.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

4