Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-04327/USCOURTS-ca4-16-04327-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jarred Barclay
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4327

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JARRED BARCLAY,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief

District Judge. (3:11-cr-00044-GMG-RWT-3)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit 

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nicholas J. Compton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, 

Kristen M. Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, Martinsburg, 

West Virginia, for Appellant. Shawn Michael Adkins, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Anna Zartler Krasinski, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4327 Doc: 22 Filed: 11/21/2016 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Jarred Barclay appeals from the order revoking his 

supervised release and imposing a 14-month sentence. Counsel 

has filed an Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) brief 

stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but 

questioning whether Barclay’s sentence was plainly unreasonable. 

The Government has declined to file a brief and Barclay was 

notified of his right to file a pro se informal brief, but he 

has not done so. We affirm.

We discern no error in the district court’s decision to 

impose a 14-month sentence. This court will affirm a sentence 

imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within 

the prescribed statutory range and is not plainly unreasonable. 

United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438-40 (4th Cir. 2006). 

While a district court must consider the Chapter Seven policy 

statements, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Ch. 7, Pt. B, and 

the statutory requirements and factors applicable to revocation 

sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012) and 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) (2012), the district court ultimately has broad 

discretion to revoke supervised release and impose a term of 

imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 

438-39.

A supervised release revocation sentence is procedurally 

reasonable if the district court considered the Chapter 7 

Appeal: 16-4327 Doc: 22 Filed: 11/21/2016 Pg: 2 of 4
3

advisory policy statements and the § 3553(a) factors it is 

permitted to consider in a supervised release revocation case. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439-40. A 

revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the district 

court stated a proper basis for concluding the defendant should 

receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. 

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. Only if a sentence is found 

procedurally or substantively unreasonable will this court “then 

decide whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable.” Id. at 

439 (emphasis omitted). 

We have carefully reviewed the record and Anders brief and

conclude that Barclay’s sentence is not plainly unreasonable. 

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 order. This 

court requires that counsel inform Barclay, in writing, of the 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Barclay 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 Barclay. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

Appeal: 16-4327 Doc: 22 Filed: 11/21/2016 Pg: 3 of 4
4

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 16-4327 Doc: 22 Filed: 11/21/2016 Pg: 4 of 4