US v. Jarred Barclay

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cr-00044-GMG-RWT-3 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999972091].. [16-4327]

Appeal: 16-4327

Doc: 22

Filed: 11/21/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4327

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JARRED BARCLAY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief
District Judge. (3:11-cr-00044-GMG-RWT-3)

Submitted:

November 17, 2016

Before GREGORY,
Judges.

Chief

Judge,

Decided:

and

MOTZ

and

November 21, 2016

TRAXLER,

Circuit

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nicholas
J.
Compton,
Assistant
Federal
Public
Defender,
Kristen M. Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, Martinsburg,
West Virginia, for Appellant.
Shawn Michael Adkins, Assistant
United States Attorney, Anna Zartler Krasinski, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED
STATES
ATTORNEY,
Martinsburg,
West
Virginia,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4327

Doc: 22

Filed: 11/21/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Jarred

Barclay

appeals

from

the

order

revoking

supervised release and imposing a 14-month sentence.

his

Counsel

has filed an Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) brief
stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
questioning whether Barclay’s sentence was plainly unreasonable.
The Government has declined to file a brief and Barclay was
notified of his right to file a pro se informal brief, but he
has not done so.

We affirm.

We discern no error in the district court’s decision to
impose a 14-month sentence.

This court will affirm a sentence

imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within
the prescribed statutory range and is not plainly unreasonable.
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438-40 (4th Cir. 2006).
While a district court must consider the Chapter Seven policy
statements, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Ch. 7, Pt. B, and
the statutory requirements and factors applicable to revocation
sentences

under

18

§ 3553(a)

(2012),

U.S.C.
the

§

3583(e)

district

(2012)

court

and

ultimately

18
has

U.S.C.
broad

discretion to revoke supervised release and impose a term of
imprisonment up to the statutory maximum.

Crudup, 461 F.3d at

438-39.
A

supervised

reasonable

if

the

release

revocation

district

court
2

sentence
considered

is
the

procedurally
Chapter

7

Appeal: 16-4327

Doc: 22

advisory

Filed: 11/21/2016

policy

statements

Pg: 3 of 4

and

the

§

3553(a)

factors

it

is

permitted to consider in a supervised release revocation case.
See

18

U.S.C.

§

3583(e);

Crudup,

461

F.3d

at

439-40.

A

revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the district
court stated a proper basis for concluding the defendant should
receive

the

sentence

Crudup,

461

F.3d

at

imposed,
440.

up
Only

to
if

the
a

statutory
sentence

maximum.
is

found

procedurally or substantively unreasonable will this court “then
decide whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable.”

Id. at

439 (emphasis omitted).
We have carefully reviewed the record and Anders brief and
conclude that Barclay’s sentence is not plainly unreasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
therefore

affirm

the

district

court’s

judgment

order.

We
This

court requires that counsel inform Barclay, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Barclay requests that a petition be filed,

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation.

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Barclay.

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

3

Appeal: 16-4327

Doc: 22

materials

before

Filed: 11/21/2016

this

court

Pg: 4 of 4

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4