UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-5258
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL WINEBUSH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (1:00-cr-00161-1)
Submitted: April 7, 2009 Decided: April 20, 2009
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T.
Miller, United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United
States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Winebush appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his supervised release and imposing a sentence of ten
months of imprisonment, followed by forty-eight months of
supervised release. On appeal, Winebush asserts that the
sentence imposed by the district court is unreasonable. Finding
no error, 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. United States v. Crudup,
461 F.3d 433, 437-40 (4th Cir. 2006). The first step in this
analysis is a determination of whether the sentence was
unreasonable. Id. at 438. While the district court must
consider the policy statements in Chapter Seven of the
sentencing guidelines, and the statutory requirements and
factors applicable to revocation sentences, “‘the court
ultimately has broad discretion to revoke its previous sentence
and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum.’”
Id. at 439 (quoting United States v. Lewis, 424 F.3d 239, 244
(2d Cir. 2005)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. We
therefore affirm the judgment. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
2
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3