US v. Irvin Edward
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:05-cr-00501-HEH-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000031096].. [16-4695]
Appeal: 16-4695
Doc: 23
Filed: 02/27/2017
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4695
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
IRVIN LYNN EDWARDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:05-cr-00501-HEH-1)
Submitted:
February 23, 2017
Decided:
February 27, 2017
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt,
Appellate Attorney, Paul E. Shelton, Jr., Research & Writing
Attorney,
Alexandria,
Virginia
for
Appellant.
Angela
Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-4695
Doc: 23
Filed: 02/27/2017
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Irvin Lynn Edwards appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking
his
months’
imprisonment
and
Edwards’
counsel
filed
California,
supervised
has
386
U.S.
release
738
and
four
a
sentencing
years’
brief
(1967),
him
to
supervised
pursuant
stating
that
to
nine
release.
Anders
there
are
v.
no
meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether Edwards’
sentence
was
unreasonable
reasons
and
for
whether
imposing
the
district
additional
court
explained
its
release.
Edwards was advised of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but he has not filed one.
“A
district
sentence
upon
court
has
revocation
broad
of
We affirm.
discretion
supervised
supervised
when
imposing
release.”
United
States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013).
affirm
a
revocation
sentence
if
it
is
within
maximum and is not ‘plainly unreasonable.’”
a
We “will
the
statutory
Id. (quoting United
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006)).
“When
reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable,
we
must
first
determine
whether
it
is
unreasonable
at
all.”
United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010).
sentence
states
is
a
substantively
proper
basis
receive
the
sentence
Crudup,
461
F.3d
at
for
reasonable
concluding
imposed,
440.
if
A
up
to
sentence
2
the
the
the
district
defendant
statutory
within
the
A
court
should
maximum.
applicable
Appeal: 16-4695
policy
Doc: 23
Filed: 02/27/2017
statement
range
Pg: 3 of 3
under
Chapter
Guidelines is presumed reasonable.
7
of
the
Sentencing
Webb, 738 F.3d at 642; see
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4 (2005).
Applying
these
standards,
we
find
that
Edwards’
within-
range prison sentence is not unreasonable, much less plainly so.
We also find reasonable the district court’s explanation for
imposing an additional term of supervised release.
Further, 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.
This
We
court
requires that counsel inform Edwards, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review.
If
Edwards
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 Edwards.
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?