United States of America v. Deshawn McBeth

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4228
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DESHAWN MCBETH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (2:08-cr-01162-PMD-1)
Submitted: June 30, 2009 Decided: July 17, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Nicholas Bianchi, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Deshawn McBeth appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-
four months’ imprisonment. McBeth’s counsel 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 the sentence, which is above the policy statement range
but within the statutory maximum, is plainly unreasonable.
McBeth was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, but he did not file one.
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
district court sufficiently considered the advisory policy
statement range of eight to fourteen months and the statutory
sentencing factors in imposing a sentence above the policy
statement range but within the statutory maximum set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2006). We therefore conclude that the
sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release is not
plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d
433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006) (providing standard).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the judgment revoking McBeth’s supervised
release and imposing a twenty-four month term of imprisonment.
This court requires that counsel inform McBeth, in writing, of
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If McBeth 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 McBeth. 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

-- 3 of 3 --