Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-04864/USCOURTS-ca4-14-04864-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Barry McLendon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4864

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JOHN BARRY MCLENDON, a/k/a Dog,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

Chief District Judge. (3:99-cr-00024-FDW-14)

Submitted: May 5, 2015 Decided: May 18, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Denzil H. Forrester, THE LAW OFFICES OF DENZIL H. FORRESTER, 

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4864 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/18/2015 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

A federal jury convicted John Barry McLendon of conspiracy 

to possess with intent to distribute and distribute cocaine and 

cocaine base (“crack”), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012). 

The district court originally sentenced McLendon to 324 months 

of imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release. 

The court subsequently lowered McLendon’s 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 262 months of imprisonment,

and later reduced the sentence to time-served plus 10 days. 

After his release, McLendon pleaded guilty to violating the 

terms of his supervised release and the district court sentenced 

McLendon to six months of imprisonment, followed by a further 

three years of supervised release. McLendon now appeals. 

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the 

revocation sentence is reasonable. McLendon 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 

Appeal: 14-4864 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/18/2015 Pg: 2 of 4
3

considerations employed in reviewing original sentences. United 

States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). 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.” Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439 (internal quotation 

marks omitted). While the court must provide a statement of 

reasons for the sentence imposed, this statement “need not be as 

detailed or specific” as that required for an original sentence. 

See United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 

2010). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that 

the sentence imposed is both procedurally and substantively 

reasonable; it follows, 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 court requires that counsel inform McLendon, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If McLendon requests that a 

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition 

would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for 

Appeal: 14-4864 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/18/2015 Pg: 3 of 4
4

leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must 

state that a copy thereof was served on McLendon. 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

Appeal: 14-4864 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/18/2015 Pg: 4 of 4