United States v. Jesse Lynch ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4462 Doc: 22 Filed: 03/15/2023 Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4462
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JESSE LEON LYNCH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:08-cr-00210-TDS-1)
Submitted: February 9, 2023 Decided: March 15, 2023
Before QUATTLEBAUM and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Michael E. Archenbronn, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4462 Doc: 22 Filed: 03/15/2023 Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Jesse Leon Lynch appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised
release and sentencing him to 24 months’ imprisonment, followed by 12 months of
supervised release. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning
whether the sentence imposed is plainly unreasonable. The Government has not filed a
response. Although informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Lynch has not
done so. We affirm.
“We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is
not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2017)
(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). “In making this determination, we
follow generally the procedural and substantive considerations that we employ in our
review of original sentences, with some necessary modifications to take into account the
unique nature of supervised release revocation sentences.” Slappy, 872 F.3d at 207(cleaned up). Only if a sentence is either procedurally or substantively unreasonable “do
we consider whether it is ‘plainly’ so, relying on the definition of ‘plain’ used in our plain
error analysis—that is, clear or obvious.” Id. at 208 (cleaned up).
“A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court adequately
explains the chosen sentence after considering the Sentencing Guidelines’ nonbinding
Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4462 Doc: 22 Filed: 03/15/2023 Pg: 3 of 4
States v. Coston, 964 F.3d 289, 297 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted); see
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). “A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if, in light of the
totality of the circumstances, the court states an appropriate basis for concluding that the
defendant should receive the sentence imposed.” Coston, 964 F.3d at 297 (internal
quotation marks omitted). A revocation sentence falling within the recommended policy
statement range is presumed reasonable. United States v. Gibbs, 897 F.3d 199, 204 (4th
Cir. 2018).
We conclude that Lynch’s revocation sentence is both procedurally and
substantively reasonable. When imposing Lynch’s revocation sentence, the district court
correctly calculated a policy statement range of 21 to 27 months’ imprisonment, considered
the relevant statutory factors, imposed a sentence within the statutory maximum, and gave
sufficiently detailed reasons for its decision. The court directly addressed Lynch’s
mitigating arguments, acknowledging his difficult upbringing and commending him for
maintaining steady employment. The court expressed concern, however, that Lynch
violated the terms of his supervision relatively soon after being released from custody,
emphasizing that this constituted an “obvious” breach of the court’s trust. In concluding
that Lynch’s within-policy-statement-range sentence was necessary, the court also
emphasized the needs for deterrence and to protect the public.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and have
found no meritorious grounds for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
revocation judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Lynch, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Lynch requests
3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4462 Doc: 22 Filed: 03/15/2023 Pg: 4 of 4
that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be 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 Lynch.
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
4