United States v. Vineyard ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 99-4078
GEORGE C. VINEYARD, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
(CR-91-89-N)
Submitted: July 20, 1999
Decided: August 4, 1999
Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
M. Woodrow Griffin, Jr., Hampton, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F.
Fahey, United States Attorney, Robert E. Bradenham II, Assistant
United States Attorney, Sean P. Henseler, Special Assistant United
States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
George C. Vineyard appeals an order of the district court revoking
his supervised release and imposing a three-year term of imprison-
ment. Acting pro se, Vineyard has also requested leave to file a sup-
plemental brief and moved for appointment of new counsel, for leave
to file a response to the reply brief (should one be filed), and to expe-
dite the appeal. We grant leave to file the supplemental brief, deny the
remaining motions, and affirm the sentence.
When imposing sentence after revocation of supervised release, the
district court must consider various factors, including the applicable
policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. See 18
U.S.C.A. §§ 3553(a)(4)(B), 3583(e) (West Supp. 1999). However, a
sentencing court is not required to impose a sentence within the range
recommended in Chapter 7 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 639 n.1 (4th Cir.
1995). The sentence should thus be affirmed unless it is plainly unrea-
sonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(4) (1994). Given the number and
duration of the violations, and the district court's finding that Vine-
yard had not made a serious attempt to comply with the terms of his
supervised release, we find that the sentence was not plainly unrea-
sonable.
We grant Vineyard's motion for leave to file a supplemental brief.
However, we find that the issues raised by Vineyard in his supple-
mental brief are without merit. We therefore affirm the conviction and
sentence. We deny the motion for appointment of new counsel and
deny as moot the motion for leave to file a response to the govern-
ment's reply brief and the motion to expedite.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2