UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4315
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEMALL ROBERT BLYTHE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:13-cr-00206-D-1)
Submitted: March 8, 2016 Decided: March 22, 2016
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sarah Jessica Farber, FARBER LAW FIRM, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jemall Robert Blythe appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his probation and sentencing him to 11 months’
imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that she has found no
meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the
sentence was substantively reasonable. Blythe was advised of
his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done
so.
We review a sentence imposed on revocation of probation
under the same standard as a sentence imposed on revocation of
supervised release. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 655
(4th Cir. 2007). “A district court has broad discretion when
imposing a [revocation] sentence.” United States v. Webb, 738
F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). “We will affirm a revocation
sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not
‘plainly unreasonable.’” Id. In conducting this review, we
assess the sentence for reasonableness, utilizing “the
procedural and substantive considerations” employed in
evaluating an original criminal sentence. United States v.
Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). Only if a sentence
is unreasonable will we “then decide whether the sentence is
plainly unreasonable.” Id. at 439. A sentence is presumed
reasonable if it is within a range properly calculated under
2
Chapter Seven of the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual.
Webb, 738 F.3d at 642. We hold that Blythe has failed to rebut
the presumption that his within-range sentence is reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious grounds for appeal and have found
none. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Blythe, in writing, of
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Blythe requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Blythe. 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
3