US v. Shawn Gillespie, II

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00187-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999989320]. [16-4477]

Appeal: 16-4477

Doc: 23

Filed: 12/19/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4477

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAWN OWEN GILLESPIE, II,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00187-1)

Submitted:

December 15, 2016

Decided:

December 19, 2016

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christian M. Capece, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Research & Writing Specialist, David R. Bungard, Assistant
Federal
Public
Defender,
Charleston,
West
Virginia,
for
Appellant.
Carol A. Casto, United States Attorney, John L.
File, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4477

Doc: 23

Filed: 12/19/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Shawn

Owen

Gillespie,

II,

appeals

the

district

court’s

judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to
24

months’

Gillespie

imprisonment,

argues

because

it

is

reflect

his

that

longer

need

for

the

statutory

his

sentence

is

than

necessary

maximum

and

drug

addiction

plainly
does

sentence.

unreasonable

not

treatment.

adequately
Finding

no

reversible error, we affirm.
“A

district

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).
Applying the above standards to the facts of this case, we
conclude that the district court’s stated reasons for imposing a
statutory

maximum

plainly so.

sentence

are

not

unreasonable,

much

less

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
2

Appeal: 16-4477

We

Doc: 23

dispense

contentions

Filed: 12/19/2016

with
are

Pg: 3 of 3

oral

because

argument

adequately

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3