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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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