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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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