UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4271
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RAHEEN ROBINSON,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:96-cr-00085-REP-2)
Submitted: February 16, 2010 Decided: March 1, 2010
Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Carolyn V.
Grady, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellant. Stephen David Schiller, Assistant United States
Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raheen Robinson appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to eighteen
months’ imprisonment. Robinson’s counsel filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether
the sentence, which is above the policy statement range but
within the statutory maximum, is plainly unreasonable. Robinson
was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,
but he did not file one.
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
district court sufficiently considered the advisory policy
statement range of four to ten months and the statutory
sentencing factors in imposing a sentence above the policy
statement range but within the statutory maximum set forth in
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2006). We therefore conclude 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).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Robinson, in writing, of
2
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Robinson 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 Robinson. 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