Court Opinion

ID: 9364985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 21:00:20.173634+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:42.758188
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4441      Doc: 20         Filed: 01/19/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4441

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        STEPHANIE DIANE ALKIRE,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cr-00031-TSK-MJA-1)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 19, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Katy J. Cimino, Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL
        PUBLIC DEFENDER, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Brandon Scott Flower,
        Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
        Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4441       Doc: 20          Filed: 01/19/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Stephanie Diane Alkire appeals the district court’s judgment imposing an 18-month

        sentence upon revocation of Alkire’s term of supervised release. Counsel filed a brief

        pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no

        meritorious grounds for appeal but discussing whether the district court imposed a plainly

        unreasonable sentence. Alkire did not file a pro se supplemental brief despite receiving

        notice of her right to do so, and the Government declined to file a response brief. Finding

        no error, we affirm.

               A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of

        supervised release. United States v. Coston, 964 F.3d 289, 296 (4th Cir. 2020), cert.

        denied, 141 S. Ct. 1252 (2021). “We affirm a revocation sentence so long as it is within

        the prescribed statutory range and is not plainly unreasonable.” Id. (internal quotation

        marks omitted). “To consider whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we

        first must determine whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable.”

        United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2017).

               “A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court adequately

        explains the chosen sentence after considering the . . . Chapter Seven policy statements and

        the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,” id. (cleaned up), and “explain[s] why any

        sentence outside of the [policy statement] range better serves the relevant sentencing

        [factors],” id. at 209 (cleaned up); see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (specifying the § 3553(a) factors

        relevant to supervised release revocation). “[A] revocation sentence is substantively

        reasonable if the court sufficiently states a proper basis for its conclusion that the defendant

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4441      Doc: 20         Filed: 01/19/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        should receive the sentence imposed[,]” up to the statutory maximum. Slappy, 872 F.3d at

        207 (cleaned up). Only if a sentence is either procedurally or substantively unreasonable

        is a determination then made as to whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. Id. at 208.

               We find that the district court committed no error when it imposed the 18-month

        sentence. To the contrary, the district court listened to the parties’ arguments and allowed

        Alkire to allocute at length before imposing sentence. The court then responded to the

        parties’ arguments and explained the selected sentence in terms of the revocation-relevant

        sentencing factors. Although counsel raises the reasonableness of Alkire’s sentence as a

        possible issue for our consideration, counsel correctly concedes that Alkire’s sentence,

        which was below the statutory maximum, is reasonable. The district court also thoroughly

        explained its rationale for imposing Alkire’s sentence, which included Alkire’s repeated

        failure to comply with the terms of her supervised release and—given the futility of

        Alkire’s previous supervised release—the court’s decision to forego imposing a new

        supervised release term. We therefore hold that Alkire’s sentence is not unreasonable. See

        Coston, 964 F.3d at 298 (“Given the district court’s care in explaining [defendant’s]

        sentence, and especially considering that court’s historic inability to prevent [defendant]

        from repeatedly violating supervised release conditions, we hold that his sentence is not

        unreasonable.”).

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

        This court requires that counsel inform Alkire, in writing, of her right to petition the

        Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Alkire requests that a petition be

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4441      Doc: 20         Filed: 01/19/2023    Pg: 4 of 4

        filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move

        this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a

        copy thereof was served on Alkire. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

        legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

        would not aid in the decisional process.

                                                                                     AFFIRMED

                                                    4