United States v. Irvin Edwards

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4695

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

IRVIN LYNN EDWARDS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:05-cr-00501-HEH-1)

Submitted: February 23, 2017 Decided: February 27, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt,
Appellate Attorney, Paul E. Shelton, Jr., Research & Writing
Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia for Appellant. Angela
Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Irvin Lynn Edwards appeals the district court’s judgment

revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to nine

months’ imprisonment and four years’ supervised release.

Edwards’ counsel has 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 Edwards’

sentence was unreasonable and whether the district court

explained its reasons for imposing additional supervised

release. Edwards was advised of his right to file a pro se

supplemental brief, but he has not filed one. We affirm.

“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a

sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” 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. (quoting United

States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006)). “When

reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable,

we must first determine whether it is unreasonable at all.”

United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010). A

sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court

states a proper basis for concluding the defendant should

receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum.

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. A sentence within the applicable

2
policy statement range under Chapter 7 of the Sentencing

Guidelines is presumed reasonable. Webb, 738 F.3d at 642; see

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4 (2005).

Applying these standards, we find that Edwards’ within-

range prison sentence is not unreasonable, much less plainly so.

We also find reasonable the district court’s explanation for

imposing an additional term of supervised release. Further, in

accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 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 Edwards, in writing, of the right

to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further

review. If Edwards 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 Edwards.

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