United States v. Wingrove , 211 F. App'x 179 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4732
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHELE WINGROVE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (CR-03-28)
Submitted: October 6, 2006 Decided: December 28, 2006
Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, Megan J. Schueler, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T.
Miller, Acting United States Attorney, R. Gregory McVey, Assistant
United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michele Wingrove appeals her sentence of twenty-four
months of imprisonment imposed after the district court revoked her
supervised release. We affirm.
On appeal, Wingrove argues that the district court erred
by failing to provide an explanation for imposing the statutory
maximum sentence that is over twice the Guideline range. She
relies on a Second Circuit decision, United States v. Lewis, 424
F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2005). She also argues that her sentence is
unreasonable because it does not further the purposes of supervised
release. Wingrove does not contest the district court’s decision
to revoke her supervised release or the district court’s Guideline
calculations. The Government responds that the district court’s
sentence is not plainly erroneous and is reasonable.
Because Wingrove did not object to the district court’s
failure to articulate the reasons for its sentence, we review for
plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993);
United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547 (4th Cir. 2005). Under
the plain error standard, Wingrove must show: (1) there was error;
(2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected her substantial
rights. Olano, 507 U.S. at 732-34. Even when these conditions are
satisfied, we may exercise our discretion to notice the error only
if the error “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public
- 2 -
reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 736 (internal
quotation marks omitted).
In United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir.
2005), this court held that “revocation sentences should be
reviewed to determine whether they are ‘plainly unreasonable’ with
regard to those § 3553(a) factors applicable to supervised release
revocation sentences.” We recognized that analysis of a sentence
imposed on revocation of supervised release involves both
procedural and substantive components. Id. at 438. We also agreed
with the Second Circuit’s statement in Lewis that “a court’s
statement of its reasons for going beyond non-binding policy
statements in imposing a sentence after revoking a defendant’s
supervised release term need not be as specific as has been
required when courts departed from guidelines that were, before
Booker, considered to be mandatory.” Id. at 439 (quoting Lewis,
424 F.3d at 245).
Our review of the record in this case leads us to
conclude that, although it could have provided a more detailed
statement, the district court’s reasons supporting its sentencing
decision are sufficiently apparent from the record. Moreover, even
if the district court erred, we do not believe the error warrants
our corrective action. We further conclude that Wingrove’s
sentence is not plainly unreasonable.
- 3 -
We therefore affirm Wingrove’s sentence. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -