UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4185
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TINA BELCASTRO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00056-IMK-JSK-5)
Submitted: September 10, 2015 Decided: September 22, 2015
Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Kristen M. Leddy,
Research and Writing Specialist, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for
Appellant. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley, Assistant United States
Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tina Belcastro appeals from the revocation of her
supervised release and the imposition of an eight-month prison
sentence. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether
the sentence is plainly unreasonable. Belcastro was advised of
her right to file a pro se supplemental brief but she did not
file one. The Government declined to file a brief. After a
careful consideration of the entire record, we affirm.
The district court has broad discretion to impose a
sentence after revoking a defendant’s term of supervised
release. United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir.
2013). Thus, we assume “a deferential appellate posture
concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion.”
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439 (4th Cir. 2006)
(internal quotation marks omitted). We begin our review by
“decid[ing] whether the sentence is unreasonable.” Id. at 438.
In doing so, we follow “generally the procedural and substantive
considerations” employed in reviewing original sentences. Id.
A supervised release revocation sentence is procedurally
reasonable if the district court has considered the policy
statements contained in Chapter 7 of the Guidelines and the
applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, Crudup, 461 F.3d
2
at 439, and has adequately explained the sentence chosen,
although the court need not explain the sentence in as much
detail as when imposing the original sentence, United States v.
Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). A revocation
sentence is substantively reasonable if the court states a
proper basis for concluding that the defendant should receive
the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461
F.3d at 440. Only if we find a sentence to be procedurally or
substantively unreasonable will we consider whether the sentence
is “plainly” so. Id. at 439.
Here, the district court court explicitly considered the
Guidelines range and the statutory factors and noted that
Belcastro’s repeated violations endangered the public and
illustrated her failure to submit to supervision. The court
considered the statements of both parties, which were
essentially in agreement and which provided no request or
reasoning for a lower sentence. The court sentenced Belcastro
to the term agreed to by the parties, which was also the low end
of the undisputed Guidelines range. We conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
Belcastro. See United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th
Cir. 2015) (standard of review).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
3
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. This
court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of
her 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 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 this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4