Court Opinion

ID: 9380003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 21:01:15.261898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:44.901305
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4462      Doc: 22         Filed: 03/15/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4462

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JESSE LEON LYNCH,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:08-cr-00210-TDS-1)

        Submitted: February 9, 2023                                       Decided: March 15, 2023

        Before QUATTLEBAUM and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Michael E. Archenbronn, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
        Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
        STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4462      Doc: 22          Filed: 03/15/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Jesse Leon Lynch appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised

        release and sentencing him to 24 months’ imprisonment, followed by 12 months of

        supervised release. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

        738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning

        whether the sentence imposed is plainly unreasonable. The Government has not filed a

        response. Although informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Lynch has not

        done so. We affirm.

               “We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is

        not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2017)

        (internal quotation marks omitted). “When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is

        plainly unreasonable, we must first determine whether it is unreasonable at all.” United

        States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010). “In making this determination, we

        follow generally the procedural and substantive considerations that we employ in our

        review of original sentences, with some necessary modifications to take into account the

        unique nature of supervised release revocation sentences.” Slappy, 872 F.3d at 207

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

        we consider whether it is ‘plainly’ so, relying on the definition of ‘plain’ used in our plain

        error analysis—that is, clear or obvious.” Id. at 208 (cleaned up).

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

        explains the chosen sentence after considering the Sentencing Guidelines’ nonbinding

        Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United
                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4462      Doc: 22         Filed: 03/15/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        States v. Coston, 964 F.3d 289, 297 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted); see

        18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). “A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if, in light of the

        totality of the circumstances, the court states an appropriate basis for concluding that the

        defendant should receive the sentence imposed.” Coston, 964 F.3d at 297 (internal

        quotation marks omitted). A revocation sentence falling within the recommended policy

        statement range is presumed reasonable. United States v. Gibbs, 897 F.3d 199, 204 (4th

        Cir. 2018).

               We conclude that Lynch’s revocation sentence is both procedurally and

        substantively reasonable. When imposing Lynch’s revocation sentence, the district court

        correctly calculated a policy statement range of 21 to 27 months’ imprisonment, considered

        the relevant statutory factors, imposed a sentence within the statutory maximum, and gave

        sufficiently detailed reasons for its decision.    The court directly addressed Lynch’s

        mitigating arguments, acknowledging his difficult upbringing and commending him for

        maintaining steady employment. The court expressed concern, however, that Lynch

        violated the terms of his supervision relatively soon after being released from custody,

        emphasizing that this constituted an “obvious” breach of the court’s trust. In concluding

        that Lynch’s within-policy-statement-range sentence was necessary, the court also

        emphasized the needs for deterrence and to protect the public.

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and have

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

        revocation judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Lynch, in writing, of the right

        to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Lynch requests
                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4462         Doc: 22      Filed: 03/15/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        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 Lynch.

               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 the

        decisional process.

                                                                                       AFFIRMED

                                                     4