US v. Misty Grafton
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:13-cr-00034-JPB-JSK-4. Copies to all parties and the district court. . [15-4328]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
MISTY AUTUMN GRAFTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins.
John Preston Bailey,
District Judge. (2:13-cr-00034-JPB-JSK-4)
November 20, 2015
December 17, 2015
Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen G. Jory, MCNEER, HIGHLAND, MCMUNN & VARNER, L.C.,
Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II,
United States Attorney, Tara N. Tighe, Assistant United States
Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
Misty Autumn Grafton appeals the district court’s judgment
sentencing her to 37 months’ imprisonment following revocation
of her probation.
On appeal, Grafton argues that her sentence
remand for resentencing.
United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652,
656-57 (4th Cir. 2007).
When reviewing whether a revocation
sentence is plainly unreasonable, we first assess the sentence
for unreasonableness, “follow[ing] generally the procedural and
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438
Chapter Seven advisory policy statement range and the 18 U.S.C.
Moulden, 478 F.3d at 657.
Here, although the district court considered the § 3553(a)
factors, it failed to calculate and indicate consideration of
the applicable policy statement range.
We therefore conclude
that Grafton’s sentence is procedurally unreasonable.
Pg: 3 of 4
whether it is plainly unreasonable.
“To determine whether a
definition of ‘plain’ used in plain-error analysis.”
States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547–48 (4th Cir. 2010).
a sentence to be plainly unreasonable, . . . it must run afoul
of clearly settled law.”
Id. at 548.
The district court’s obligation to consider the advisory
policy statement range is settled law in this circuit.
478 F.3d at 657.
Thus, the court’s failure to consider the
Because Grafton did not preserve this claim for appellate
review, our review is for plain error.
See Fed. R. Crim. P.
To establish plain error, Grafton must demonstrate that
(1) the district court committed an error; (2) the error was
Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121, 1126 (2013).
seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation
of judicial proceedings.”
United States v. Nicholson, 676 F.3d
376, 381 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Pg: 4 of 4
As stated, we recognize a sentencing error and find the
sentence to be plainly unreasonable because it runs afoul of
clearly established law.
461 F.3d at 439.
See Moulden, 478 F.3d at 656; Crudup,
Additionally, because the sentence imposed by
the district court was well above the advisory policy statement
range calculated by the probation officer, Grafton’s substantial
rights were affected by the error.
We cannot tell whether, had
See Thompson, 595 F.3d at 548.
remand for resentencing.
We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
VACATED AND REMANDED
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?