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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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