US v. Andre Harvey
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:05-cr-00357-REP-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999587659].. [14-4841]
Appeal: 14-4841
Doc: 23
Filed: 05/21/2015
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4841
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ANDRE HARVEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00357-REP-2)
Submitted:
May 14, 2015
Decided:
May 21, 2015
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Carolyn V.
Grady, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt,
OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellant. Olivia L. Norman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-4841
Doc: 23
Filed: 05/21/2015
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Andre Harvey pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute and distribute cocaine base (“crack”), in
violation
of
originally
followed
21
U.S.C.
sentenced
by
four
§ 846
Harvey
years
(2012).
to
of
135
The
months
supervised
district
of
court
imprisonment,
release.
The
court
subsequently lowered Harvey’s sentence twice on his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2)
(2012)
motions,
based
on
two
retroactively-
applicable amendments to the Guidelines that lowered the offense
levels for offenses involving crack.
The court first lowered
the sentence to 108 months of imprisonment, and later reduced
the sentence to time served.
After his release, Harvey pleaded guilty to violating the
conditions
of
his
supervised
release
and
the
district
court
sentenced Harvey to 24 months of imprisonment, followed by a
further 24 months of supervised release.
Appellate
counsel
California,
386
has
U.S.
filed
738
a
brief
(1967),
revocation sentence is reasonable.
Harvey now appeals.
pursuant
questioning
to
Anders
whether
v.
the
Harvey was informed of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done
so.
Finding no error, we affirm.
We review a sentence imposed as a result of a supervised
release violation to determine whether the sentence was plainly
unreasonable, generally following the procedural and substantive
2
Appeal: 14-4841
Doc: 23
Filed: 05/21/2015
Pg: 3 of 4
considerations employed in reviewing original sentences.
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006).
United
Although a
district court must consider the policy statements in Chapter
Seven
of
the
Sentencing
Guidelines
along
with
the
statutory
requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (2012) and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012), “the court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke its
previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the
statutory maximum.”
marks
omitted).
conclude
that
substantively
Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439 (internal quotation
We
the
have
thoroughly
sentence
imposed
reasonable;
it
reviewed
is
follows,
both
the
record
and
procedurally
and
therefore,
that
the
sentence is not plainly unreasonable.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with the
requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
This
writing,
of
court
the
requires
right
to
that
petition
United States for further review.
counsel
the
inform
Supreme
Harvey,
Court
of
in
the
If Harvey 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 was served on Harvey.
We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
3
Appeal: 14-4841
Doc: 23
adequately
Filed: 05/21/2015
presented
in
the
Pg: 4 of 4
materials
before
the
court
and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4
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?