US v. Irvin Edward


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4695 Doc: 23 Filed: 02/27/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4695 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. IRVIN LYNN EDWARDS, Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?