US v. Jemall Blythe


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:13-cr-00206-D-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999779190]. [15-4315]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-4315 Doc: 34 Filed: 03/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4315 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEMALL ROBERT BLYTHE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:13-cr-00206-D-1) Submitted: March 8, 2016 Decided: March 22, 2016 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sarah Jessica Farber, FARBER LAW FIRM, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-4315 Doc: 34 Filed: 03/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Jemall Robert Blythe appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his probation imprisonment. and sentencing him to 11 months’ Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that she has found no meritorious grounds for appeal but sentence was substantively reasonable. questioning whether the Blythe was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. We review a sentence imposed on revocation of probation under the same standard as a sentence imposed on revocation of supervised release. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 655 (4th Cir. 2007). “A district court has broad discretion when imposing a [revocation] sentence.” F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). sentence if it is within ‘plainly unreasonable.’” assess the procedural evaluating sentence and an the maximum and is not In conducting this review, we reasonableness, substantive original “We will affirm a revocation statutory Id. for United States v. Webb, 738 utilizing considerations” criminal sentence. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). “the employed United States in v. Only if a sentence is unreasonable will we “then decide whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable.” Id. at 439. A sentence is presumed reasonable if it is within a range properly calculated under 2 Appeal: 15-4315 Doc: 34 Filed: 03/22/2016 Pg: 3 of 3 Chapter Seven of the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual. Webb, 738 F.3d at 642. We hold that Blythe has failed to rebut the presumption that his within-range sentence is reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for any meritorious grounds for appeal and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Blythe, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Blythe requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Blythe. 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 3

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?