US v. Tina Belcastro

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00056-IMK-JSK-5 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999664407].. [15-4185]

Appeal: 15-4185

Doc: 24

Filed: 09/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4185

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TINA BELCASTRO,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00056-IMK-JSK-5)

Submitted:

September 10, 2015

Before WYNN and
Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

September 22, 2015

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Kristen M. Leddy,
Research and Writing Specialist, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for
Appellant.
Zelda Elizabeth Wesley, Assistant United States
Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4185

Doc: 24

Filed: 09/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Tina

Belcastro

appeals

from

the

revocation

of

her

supervised release and the imposition of an eight-month prison
sentence.

On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether
the sentence is plainly unreasonable.

Belcastro was advised of

her right to file a pro se supplemental brief but she did not
file one.

The Government declined to file a brief.

After a

careful consideration of the entire record, we affirm.
The
sentence
release.
2013).

after

has

revoking

we

issues

States

(internal

court

broad

a

discretion

defendant’s

term

to
of

impose

a

supervised

United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir.
Thus,

concerning
United

district

v.

assume
of

fact

Crudup,

quotation

“a

marks

deferential

and
461

the

appellate

exercise

F.3d

433,

439

omitted).

We

of

discretion.”

(4th

begin

Cir.

our

“decid[ing] whether the sentence is unreasonable.”

posture

2006)

review

by

Id. at 438.

In doing so, we follow “generally the procedural and substantive
considerations” employed in reviewing original sentences.
A

supervised

release

reasonable

if

the

statements

contained

revocation

district
in

court

Chapter

7

sentence
has
of

is

considered
the

Id.

procedurally
the

Guidelines

policy
and

the

applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, Crudup, 461 F.3d
2

Appeal: 15-4185

at

Doc: 24

439,

Filed: 09/22/2015

and

has

adequately

Pg: 3 of 4

explained

the

sentence

chosen,

although the court need not explain the sentence in as much
detail as when imposing the original sentence, United States v.
Thompson,
sentence

595
is

F.3d

544,

547

substantively

(4th

Cir.

reasonable

2010).

if

the

A

revocation

court

states

a

proper basis for concluding that the defendant should receive
the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum.
F.3d at 440.

Crudup, 461

Only if we find a sentence to be procedurally or

substantively unreasonable will we consider whether the sentence
is “plainly” so.

Id. at 439.

Here, the district court court explicitly considered the
Guidelines

range

Belcastro’s

and

repeated

the

statutory

violations

factors

endangered

and

noted

the

public

illustrated her failure to submit to supervision.
considered

the

essentially

in

statements
agreement

of

and

both

which

reasoning for a lower sentence.

and

The court

parties,
provided

that

which

no

were

request

or

The court sentenced Belcastro

to the term agreed to by the parties, which was also the low end
of

the

undisputed

district

court

Belcastro.

Guidelines

did

not

range.

abuse

its

We

conclude

discretion

in

that

the

sentencing

See United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th

Cir. 2015) (standard of review).
In
record

accordance
and

have

with
found

Anders,
no

we

have

meritorious
3

reviewed
issues

the
for

entire
appeal.

Appeal: 15-4185

Doc: 24

Filed: 09/22/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

This

court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of
her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further
filed,

review.
but

frivolous,

If

counsel
then

the

client

believes

counsel

may

withdraw from representation.

requests

that
move

such
this

that
a

a

petition

petition

court

for

be

would

be

leave

to

Counsel’s motion must state that

a copy thereof was served on the client.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4