Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-04273/USCOURTS-ca4-08-04273-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edward B. Bennett
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4273

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EDWARD B. BENNETT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (2:04-cr-01089-PMD-1)

Submitted: July 17, 2008 Decided: August 20, 2008

Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,

South Carolina, for Appellant. Michael Rhett DeHart, Assistant

United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-4273 Doc: 19 Filed: 08/20/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Edward B. Bennett appeals the district court’s judgment

sentencing him to ten months’ imprisonment and twenty-six months’

supervised release after finding he violated terms of his

supervised release. The term of imprisonment was within the

advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of imprisonment. Bennett’s

counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), contending there exist no meritorious grounds for

appeal and conceding the sentence was reasonable. Bennett was

notified of the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief but

chose not to do so. We affirm. 

We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of

supervised release if it is within the prescribed statutory range

and not plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Crudup, 461

F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). In making this determination, we

first consider whether the sentence is procedurally or

substantively unreasonable, and if so, whether it is “plainly” so.

Id. While the district court must consider the Chapter 7 policy

statements and statutory requirements and factors applicable to

revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 3553(a), 3583 (West 2000

& Supp. 2008), the district court ultimately has broad discretion

to revoke the previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment

up to the statutory maximum.

Appeal: 08-4273 Doc: 19 Filed: 08/20/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

We find no error with respect to the district court’s

decision to revoke Bennett’s supervised release and sentence him to

a term of ten months’ imprisonment. There was also no error with

respect to the district court’s application of the Sentencing

Guidelines in determining Bennett’s advisory guidelines range of

imprisonment. Likewise, we find no error with the direction that

Bennett serve five months of his supervised release in a

residential reentry program. 

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 order revoking

Bennett’s supervised release and imposing a ten month sentence.

This court requires counsel inform his client, in writing, of his

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for

further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed,

but counsel believes 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 the client. 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: 08-4273 Doc: 19 Filed: 08/20/2008 Pg: 3 of 3