United States v. Misty Evans

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4843
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MISTY DAWN EVANS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00272-1)
Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 9, 2013
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, Lex A. Coleman, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth
Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Meredith George Thomas,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Misty Dawn Evans was sentenced to twenty-four months
in prison following the revocation of her supervised release.
She appeals, arguing that her sentence is plainly unreasonable
because it is greater than necessary to serve the purposes of
supervised release. We affirm.
The district court has broad discretion in selecting
the sentence to impose upon revoking a defendant’s supervised
release. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir.
2010). This court will affirm a sentence imposed after
revocation of supervised release if it is within the governing
statutory range and not plainly unreasonable. United States v.
Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437–40 (4th Cir. 2006). “When reviewing
whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we must
first determine whether it is unreasonable at all.” Thompson,
595 F.3d at 546.
A sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district
court has considered the policy statements contained in Chapter
Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines and the applicable 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006) factors, Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440, and has
adequately explained the sentence chosen. Thompson, 595 F.3d at
547. A sentence is substantively reasonable if the district
court states “a proper basis” for its imposition of a sentence
up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. If,
2
after considering the above, we decide that the sentence is not
unreasonable, we will affirm. Id. at 439. Only if this court
finds the sentence unreasonable must it decide whether it is
“plainly” so. Id. at 439
With these principles in mind, we have reviewed the
record and the parties’ briefs and find no error. We therefore
conclude that Evans’ twenty-four-month sentence is not plainly
unreasonable and, accordingly, affirm the revocation judgment.
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