US v. Shawn Gillespie, II


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4477 Doc: 23 Filed: 12/19/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4477 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHAWN OWEN GILLESPIE, II, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?