United States v. Murphy

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4250

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY MURPHY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge (3:05-cr-00275-REP-1)

Submitted: February 4, 2009 Decided: February 18, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Frances H.
Pratt, Carolyn V. Grady, Assistant Federal Public Defenders,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United
States Attorney, Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United
States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Anthony Murphy appeals the twenty-four month sentence

imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. On

appeal, counsel asserts that the sentence is plainly

unreasonable because the district court failed to consider the

advisory sentencing guidelines range or the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

(2006) sentencing factors. Finding no reversible error, we

affirm.

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the

district court sufficiently considered the advisory sentencing

guideline range of eight to fourteen months and the statutory

sentencing factors in imposing a sentence within the statutory

maximum set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). 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).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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

2