US v. Stafford Calhoun Berry

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:07-cr-00353-TLW-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999020288].. [12-4658]

Appeal: 12-4658

Doc: 19

Filed: 01/11/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4658

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STAFFORD CALHOUN BERRY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:07-cr-00353-TLW-1)

Submitted:

January 4, 2013

Decided:

January 11, 2013

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4658

Doc: 19

Filed: 01/11/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Stafford

Calhoun

Berry

appeals

the

district

court’s

revocation of his term of supervised release and sentence of six
months’ imprisonment after he admitted or failed to contest six
violations of the terms of his release.

On appeal, counsel for

Berry filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738

(1967),

asserting

unreasonable.

that

the

sentence

is

not

plainly

Berry has not exercised his right to file a pro

se supplemental brief.

We affirm.

We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of
supervised release if it is within the statutory range and not
plainly unreasonable.
439-40

(4th

sentence

Cir.

is

procedurally
Guidelines

United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433,

2006).

We

first

unreasonable.”
reasonable

range

and

if

Id.

the

the
18

determine

at

438.

district

U.S.C.

sentence
stated

is
a

substantively

proper

basis

§ 3553(a)

reasonable

for

A

court

applicable to supervised release revocation.

concluding

if

“whether
sentence

considered
(2006)

the

district
defendant

the

A

court
should

receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum.
at 440.

is

factors

Id. at 438-40.
the

the

Id.

We will “tak[e] a more deferential appellate posture

concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than
reasonableness
conviction].”

review

for

.

.

.

sentences

[imposed

after

United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th
2

Appeal: 12-4658

Doc: 19

Filed: 01/11/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).

If the sentence

is procedurally or substantively unreasonable, we then decide
whether it is plainly unreasonable.
plainly

unreasonable

settled law.”

if

“it

.

.

Id. at 657.
.

run[s]

A sentence is

afoul

of

clearly

United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 548 (4th

Cir. 2010).
We conclude that Berry’s revocation sentence is not
unreasonable,

much

less

plainly

so.

The

district

court

correctly calculated the applicable Guidelines range, considered
the

applicable

Berry’s

standards,

sentencing

explained

request,

and

within the appropriate range.

its

selected

reasons
a

for

sentence

denying
squarely

Moreover, Berry agreed to the

selected sentence in exchange for the Government’s agreement to
not pursue additional violations.
sentence

is

not

unreasonable.

We thus conclude that Berry’s
We

have

reviewed

the

entire

record pursuant to our obligation under Anders, and we discern
no meritorious issue for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

We dispense with

legal

contentions

are

before

this

and

court

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3