UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4336
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PAULA HANNA, a/k/a Paulette G. Hanna, a/k/a Paula Moore,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (2:01-cr-00749-PMD-1)
Submitted: July 16, 2008 Decided: August 29, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Paula Hanna appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking her supervised release and sentencing her to fourteen
months of imprisonment. 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 suggesting that the sentence
is unreasonable. Hanna was advised of her right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but she has not done so. We affirm.
Counsel questions whether Hanna’s sentence is reasonable.
While the sentence Hanna received is five months above the advisory
sentencing guideline range, it is within the applicable statutory
maximum sentence. 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 a sentence
above the advisory guideline range. 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,
437, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006) (providing standard), cert. denied, 127
S. Ct. 1813 (2007); see also United States v. Finley, __ F.3d __,
__, 2008 WL 2574457, at *5 (4th Cir. June 30, 2008) (No. 07-4690)
(“In applying the ‘plainly unreasonable’ standard, we first
determine, using the instructions given in Gall[ v. United States,
128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007)], whether a sentence is
‘unreasonable.’”).
- 2 -
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
Hanna’s supervised release and imposing a fourteen-month sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform the client, in writing, of
the 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 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 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 -