United States v. Murphy

311 F. App'x 670
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Murphy. Read the opinion of the Court — 552 F.3d 405
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided February 18, 2009·No. 08-4250·Unpublished

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Murphy appeals the twenty-four month sentence imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. On appeal, counsel asserts that the sentence is plainly unreasonable because the district court failed to consider the advisory sentencing guidelines range or the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) sentencing factors. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court sufficiently considered the advisory sentencing guideline range of eight to fourteen months and the statutory sentencing factors in imposing a sentence within the statutory maximum set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). We therefore find .that the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release is not plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir.2006) (providing standard).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Murphy, 311 F. App'x 670 (4th Cir. 2009).

311 F. App'x 670 (United States v. Murphy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Christopher Devon Crudup
461 F.3d 433 (Fourth Circuit, 2006)