United States v. Birt

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4590
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ADAM JEROME BIRT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,
District Judge. (4:04-cr-00012-RBS-TEM-1)
Submitted: December 11, 2009 Decided: January 4, 2010
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Larry M. Dash,
Frances H. Pratt, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Caroline
S. Platt, Research and Writing Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellant. Robert Edward Bradenham, II, Assistant United States
Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adam Jerome Birt appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-
four months of imprisonment, the statutory maximum sentence.
Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues
for appeal but suggesting that the sentence was plainly
unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to achieve
the purposes of sentencing and the district court failed to
explain adequately its chosen sentence. Birt filed a pro se
supplemental brief on the same grounds. We affirm.
Birt received the statutory maximum sentence, which is
the top of the advisory sentencing guidelines range. Moreover,
our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district
court sufficiently considered the statutory factors and
explained its reasons for imposing the twenty-four-month
sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007);
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). We
therefore find that the sentence imposed upon revocation of
supervised release is not plainly unreasonable. See United
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006)
(providing standard); see also United States v. Finley, 531 F.3d
288, 294 (4th Cir. 2008) (“In applying the ‘plainly
unreasonable’ standard, we first determine, using the
2
instructions given in Gall, whether a sentence is
‘unreasonable.’”).
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 Birt, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Birt 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 Birt. 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
3