US v. Mandrell Davi
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00433-JAB-6. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999989315]. [16-4427]
Appeal: 16-4427
Doc: 19
Filed: 12/19/2016
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4427
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MANDRELL EDWARD DAVIS, a/k/a Dro,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00433-JAB-6)
Submitted:
December 15, 2016
Decided:
December 19, 2016
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael E. Archenbronn, Winston Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-4427
Doc: 19
Filed: 12/19/2016
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Mandrell Edward Davis appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 12 months’
imprisonment.
Davis’
counsel
has
filed
a
brief
pursuant
to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether
Davis’
sentence
was
substantively
unreasonable.
Davis
was
advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he
has not filed one.
“A
district
We affirm.
court
has
broad
discretion
sentence upon revocation of supervised release.
when
imposing
a
We will affirm
a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and
is not plainly unreasonable.”
United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d
638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“When
reviewing
whether
a
revocation
sentence
is
plainly
unreasonable, we must first determine whether it is unreasonable
at all.”
2010).
United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir.
A sentence is substantively reasonable if the district
court states a proper basis for concluding the defendant should
receive
the
sentence
imposed,
up
to
the
statutory
maximum.
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 440 (4th Cir. 2006).
sentence
within
the
applicable
policy
statement
range
A
under
Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines is presumed reasonable.
2
Appeal: 16-4427
Doc: 19
Filed: 12/19/2016
Pg: 3 of 3
Webb, 738 F.3d at 642; see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 7B1.4 (2014).
Applying these standards, we conclude that Davis’ withinrange
sentence
is
not
unreasonable,
much
less
plainly
so.
Further, in accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.
We
therefore
affirm
the
district
court’s
judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Davis, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.
If Davis requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel
may
move
representation.
in
this
court
for
leave
to
withdraw
from
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Davis.
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?