US v. Andre Harvey


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 14-4841 Doc: 23 Filed: 05/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4841 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ANDRE HARVEY, Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?