Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 46 views

    United States v. Andre Harvey, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Andre Harvey's 24-month sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release. Harvey was originally sentenced to 135 months in prison for conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, which was later reduced twice. After his release, Harvey pleaded guilty to violating his supervised release. The Court found Harvey's sentence for the violation to be both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The Court also determined there were no meritorious issues to raise on appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Andre Harvey, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    46 views4 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Andre Harvey's 24-month sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release. Harvey was originally sentenced to 135 months in prison for conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, which was later reduced twice. After his release, Harvey pleaded guilty to violating his supervised release. The Court found Harvey's sentence for the violation to be both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The Court also determined there were no meritorious issues to raise on appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-05-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-4841

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Andre Harvey's 24-month sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release. Harvey was originally sentenced to 135 months in prison for conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, which was later reduced twice. After his release, Harvey pleaded guilty to violating his supervised release. The Court found Harvey's sentence for the violation to be both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The Court also determined there were no meritorious issues to raise on appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    46 views4 pages

    United States v. Andre Harvey, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Andre Harvey's 24-month sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release. Harvey was originally sentenced to 135 months in prison for conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, which was later reduced twice. After his release, Harvey pleaded guilty to violating his supervised release. The Court found Harvey's sentence for the violation to be both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The Court also determined there were no meritorious issues to raise on appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    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

    originally
    followed

    21

    U.S.C.

    sentenced
    by

    four

    846

    Harvey

    years

    (2012).

    to

    of

    135

    The

    months

    supervised

    district
    of

    court

    imprisonment,

    release.

    The

    court

    subsequently lowered Harveys 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.
    Appellate

    counsel

    California,

    386

    has
    U.S.

    filed
    738

    brief

    (1967),

    revocation sentence is reasonable.

    Harvey now appeals.

    pursuant

    questioning

    to

    Anders

    whether

    v.
    the

    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.


    States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006).

    United

    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.
    marks

    omitted).

    conclude

    that

    substantively

    Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439 (internal quotation

    We

    the

    have

    thoroughly

    sentence

    imposed

    reasonable;

    it

    reviewed
    is

    follows,

    both

    the

    record

    and

    procedurally

    and

    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

    writing,

    of

    court

    the

    requires

    right

    to

    that

    petition

    United States for further review.

    counsel
    the

    inform

    Supreme

    Harvey,

    Court

    of

    in
    the

    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.

    Counsels motion must

    state that a copy thereof was served on Harvey.

    We dispense

    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    the

    court

    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.


    AFFIRMED

    You might also like