US v. Jemall Blythe
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?