US v. Jamie Site

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:02-cr-00009-JPB-JSK-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999882390]. [15-4755]

Appeal: 15-4755

Doc: 18

Filed: 07/08/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4755

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMIE WILLIAM SITES,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins.
John Preston Bailey,
District Judge. (2:02-cr-00009-JPB-JSK-1)

Submitted:

June 29, 2016

Decided:

July 8, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Katy J. Cimino, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Kristen M.
Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, Martinsburg, West
Virginia, for Appellant.
Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant
United States Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4755

Doc: 18

Filed: 07/08/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jamie William Sites appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking

his

supervised

months’ imprisonment.

release

and

sentencing

him

to

eight

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 questioning whether
the sentence was substantively reasonable.

Sites was advised of

his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done
so.
“A

district

court

has

broad

discretion

when

sentence upon revocation of supervised release.”
v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013).

imposing

a

United States

“We will affirm a

revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is
not ‘plainly unreasonable.’”
assess

the

procedural
evaluating

sentence
and

an

for

Id.

reasonableness,

substantive

original

In conducting this review, we
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 that is within a

properly calculated Chapter Seven range is presumed reasonable.
Webb, 738 F.3d at 642.

We conclude that Sites fails to rebut

the

his

presumption

that

within-Guidelines

reasonable.
2

sentence

is

Appeal: 15-4755

Doc: 18

In

Filed: 07/08/2016

accordance

with

Pg: 3 of 3

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 Sites, in writing, of
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Sites requests that a petition be filed, but

counsel

believes

that

counsel

may

in

move

representation.

and

materials

legal
before

this

a

petition

court

for

would

leave

to

be

frivolous,

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Sites.
facts

such

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3