UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4841
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ANDRE HARVEY,
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-00357-REP-2)
Submitted: May 14, 2015 Decided: May 21, 2015
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Carolyn V.
Grady, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt,
OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellant. Olivia L. Norman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Andre Harvey pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute and distribute cocaine base (“crack”), in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012). The district court
originally sentenced Harvey to 135 months of imprisonment,
followed by four years of supervised release. The court
subsequently lowered Harvey’s sentence twice on his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2012) motions, based on two retroactively-
applicable amendments to the Guidelines that lowered the offense
levels for offenses involving crack. The court first lowered
the sentence to 108 months of imprisonment, and later reduced
the sentence to time served.
After his release, Harvey pleaded guilty to violating the
conditions of his supervised release and the district court
sentenced Harvey to 24 months of imprisonment, followed by a
further 24 months of supervised release. Harvey now appeals.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the
revocation sentence is reasonable. Harvey was informed of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done
so. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review a sentence imposed as a result of a supervised
release violation to determine whether the sentence was plainly
unreasonable, generally following the procedural and substantive
2
considerations employed in reviewing original sentences. United
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). Although a
district court must consider the policy statements in Chapter
Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines along with the statutory
requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (2012) and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012), “the court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke its
previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the
statutory maximum.” Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439 (internal quotation
marks omitted). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and
conclude that the sentence imposed is both procedurally and
substantively reasonable; it follows, therefore, that the
sentence is not plainly unreasonable.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with the
requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. This court requires that counsel inform Harvey, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Harvey 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 Harvey. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
3
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4