US v. Sandra Kuhn


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00058-GMG-RWT-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000176505].. [17-4285]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-4285 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/19/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-4285 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SANDRA E. KUHNS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:13-cr-00058-GMG-RWT-1) Submitted: October 17, 2017 Decided: October 19, 2017 Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aaron D. Moss, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Kristen M. Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Lara Kay OmpsBotteicher, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-4285 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/19/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Sandra E. Kuhns appeals the district court’s judgment revoking her supervised release and sentencing her to one year and one day’s imprisonment. Kuhns’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether Kuhns’ sentence was substantively unreasonable. Kuhns was advised of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but she has not filed one. We affirm. “A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release. 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.” United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010). 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 these standards, we find that Kuhns’ sentence is not unreasonable, much less plainly so. Further, in accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Kuhns, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Kuhns requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be 2 Appeal: 17-4285 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/19/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Kuhns. 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?