Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    United States v. Jesse Goodwin, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment revoking Jesse Goodwin's supervised release and imposing an 8-month prison sentence with no further supervised release. Goodwin's attorney filed an Anders brief stating there were no meritorious grounds for appeal. The appellate court reviewed the record and found Goodwin's sentence was reasonable and within the statutory and policy statement ranges. The district court did not err or abuse its discretion in determining a sentence at the low end of the range was appropriate.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Jesse Goodwin, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    12 views4 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment revoking Jesse Goodwin's supervised release and imposing an 8-month prison sentence with no further supervised release. Goodwin's attorney filed an Anders brief stating there were no meritorious grounds for appeal. The appellate court reviewed the record and found Goodwin's sentence was reasonable and within the statutory and policy statement ranges. The district court did not err or abuse its discretion in determining a sentence at the low end of the range was appropriate.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-07-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-4265

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment revoking Jesse Goodwin's supervised release and imposing an 8-month prison sentence with no further supervised release. Goodwin's attorney filed an Anders brief stating there were no meritorious grounds for appeal. The appellate court reviewed the record and found Goodwin's sentence was reasonable and within the statutory and policy statement ranges. The district court did not err or abuse its discretion in determining a sentence at the low end of the range was appropriate.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    12 views4 pages

    United States v. Jesse Goodwin, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment revoking Jesse Goodwin's supervised release and imposing an 8-month prison sentence with no further supervised release. Goodwin's attorney filed an Anders brief stating there were no meritorious grounds for appeal. The appellate court reviewed the record and found Goodwin's sentence was reasonable and within the statutory and policy statement ranges. The district court did not err or abuse its discretion in determining a sentence at the low end of the range was appropriate.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-4265

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JESSE FRANKLIN GOODWIN,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
    Margaret B. Seymour, Senior
    District Judge. (0:94-cr-00605-MBS-2)

    Submitted:

    July 17, 2014

    Decided:

    July 24, 2014

    Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Allen B. Burnside, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,


    South Carolina, for Appellant.
    Winston David Holliday, Jr.,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Jesse

    Franklin

    Goodwin

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a sentence


    of eight months imprisonment with no further supervised release.
    Goodwins

    attorney

    has

    filed

    brief

    pursuant

    to

    Anders

    v.

    California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising the issue of whether


    the sentence was imposed in violation of the law or is plainly
    unreasonable,

    but

    concluding

    grounds for appeal.

    that

    there

    are

    review

    meritorious

    Goodwin was notified of his right to file a

    pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.


    We

    no

    district

    courts

    We affirm.
    judgment

    revoking

    supervised release and imposing a term of imprisonment for abuse


    of discretion.
    Cir. 1992).

    United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th


    Challenges to a district courts jurisdiction or

    authority are issues of law that we review de novo.

    United

    States v. Winfield, 665 F.3d 107, 109 (4th Cir. 2012); United
    States v. Buchanan, 638 F.3d 448, 451 (4th Cir. 2011).
    To revoke supervised release, a district court need
    only find a violation of a condition of supervised release by a
    preponderance of the evidence.

    18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(3) (2012).

    A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence


    upon revocation of supervised release.
    738

    F.3d

    638,

    640

    (4th

    Cir.

    2013).

    United States v. Webb,


    In

    exercising

    such

    discretion, the court is guided by the Chapter Seven policy


    2

    statements

    in

    the

    federal

    Guidelines

    manual,

    as

    well

    as

    the

    statutory factors applicable to revocation sentences under 18


    U.S.C. 3553(a), 3583(e).
    court

    must

    explain

    its

    Id. at 641.

    sentence,

    the

    While a district

    court

    need

    not

    be

    as

    detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it


    must

    be

    when

    imposing

    post-conviction

    sentence.

    United

    States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).


    We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of
    supervised

    release

    if

    it

    is

    within

    the

    prescribed

    statutory

    range and not plainly unreasonable.

    United States v. Crudup,

    461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006).

    We first consider whether

    the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable.


    at 438.

    Id.

    In this initial inquiry, we take a more deferential

    posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion


    than

    reasonableness

    review

    for

    Guidelines

    sentences.

    United

    States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007).

    Only if

    we find the sentence procedurally or substantively unreasonable


    must we decide whether it is plainly so.
    presume

    that

    sentence

    within

    statement range is reasonable.


    We

    have

    reviewed

    the

    Id. at 657.

    Chapter

    Seven

    We

    policy

    Webb, 738 F.3d at 642.


    the

    record

    and

    conclude

    that

    Goodwins sentence is reasonable, and the district court did not


    err or abuse its discretion.

    The sentence is within both the

    prescribed statutory range and the policy statement range, and


    3

    the district court reasonably determined that a sentence at the


    low end of the policy statement range was appropriate in this
    case.

    Moreover, in accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the

    entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.


    Accordingly, we affirm the district courts judgment.
    This court requires that counsel inform his or her client, in
    writing, of his or her right to petition the Supreme Court of
    the United States for further review.
    that

    petition

    be

    filed,

    but

    If the client requests

    counsel

    believes

    that

    such

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


    for leave to withdraw from representation.

    Counsels motion

    must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.


    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal
    before

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like