UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4273
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDWARD B. BENNETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (2:04-cr-01089-PMD-1)
Submitted: July 17, 2008 Decided: August 20, 2008
Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Michael Rhett DeHart, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Edward B. Bennett appeals the district court’s judgment
sentencing him to ten months’ imprisonment and twenty-six months’
supervised release after finding he violated terms of his
supervised release. The term of imprisonment was within the
advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of imprisonment. Bennett’s
counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), contending there exist no meritorious grounds for
appeal and conceding the sentence was reasonable. Bennett was
notified of the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief but
chose not to do so. We affirm.
We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of
supervised release if it is within the prescribed statutory range
and not plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Crudup, 461
F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). In making this determination, we
first consider whether the sentence is procedurally or
substantively unreasonable, and if so, whether it is “plainly” so.
Id. While the district court must consider the Chapter 7 policy
statements and statutory requirements and factors applicable to
revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 3553(a), 3583 (West 2000
& Supp. 2008), the district court ultimately has broad discretion
to revoke the previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment
up to the statutory maximum.
- 2 -
We find no error with respect to the district court’s
decision to revoke Bennett’s supervised release and sentence him to
a term of ten months’ imprisonment. There was also no error with
respect to the district court’s application of the Sentencing
Guidelines in determining Bennett’s advisory guidelines range of
imprisonment. Likewise, we find no error with the direction that
Bennett serve five months of his supervised release in a
residential reentry program.
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 order revoking
Bennett’s supervised release and imposing a ten month sentence.
This court requires counsel inform his client, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes 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 the client. 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 -