United States v. Irvin Edwards , 678 F. App'x 120 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Irvin Lynn Edwards appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to nine
months’ imprisonment and four years’ supervised release.
Edwards’ 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 Edwards’
sentence was unreasonable and whether the district court
explained its reasons for imposing additional supervised
release. Edwards was advised of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but he has not filed one. We affirm.
“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a
sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” United
States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). We “will
affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory
maximum and is not ‘plainly unreasonable.’” 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). 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.
Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. A sentence within the applicable
2
policy statement range under Chapter 7 of the Sentencing
Guidelines is presumed reasonable. 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. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This 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 in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. 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