UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4722
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
AMY FRENCH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. Irene C. Berger,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00118-1)
Submitted: January 4, 2013 Decided: January 16, 2013
Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, Lex A. Coleman, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth
Goodwin II, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
Amy French appeals the nine-month sentence imposed
upon revocation of her supervised release. On appeal, French
contends that her nine-month sentence is plainly unreasonable.
We affirm.
We will affirm a sentence imposed following revocation
of supervised release if it is within the applicable statutory
maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. United States v.
Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). * In determining
whether a revocation sentence is unreasonable, “we follow
generally the procedural and substantive considerations” used in
reviewing original sentences. Id. at 438. Only if we conclude
that the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable
must we decide whether it is plainly so. United States v.
Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007).
French’s sentence is below the statutory maximum of
twenty-four months for a Class C felony. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(3) (2006). Further, the sentence is procedurally
reasonable because the district court considered both the
Chapter 7 policy statements and the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West
Supp. 2011) factors that it was permitted to consider. See
*
We decline French’s invitation to revisit the “plainly
unreasonable” test established by our decision in Crudup.
2
Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-40. Finally, the sentence is
substantively reasonable, because the district court
sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing the sentence,
emphasizing the breach of trust that French had committed by
coming before the district court again after a previous
violation of her supervised release and French’s apparent
inability to remain in court-mandated drug treatment.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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