Scribd
Upload
68 views4 pages

United States v. Traci McLean, 4th Cir. (2014)

Traci Lynn McLean appealed the district court's judgment revoking her supervised release and sentencing her to 4 months in prison followed by 68 months of supervised release. McLean's counsel argued there were no meritorious issues for appeal but questioned if the 68 month supervised release term was plainly unreasonable. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding the sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable given the court's consideration of relevant factors and statutory guidelines. The 68 month supervised release term was found to be within the court's broad discretion and not plainly unreasonable.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
68 views4 pages

United States v. Traci McLean, 4th Cir. (2014)

Traci Lynn McLean appealed the district court's judgment revoking her supervised release and sentencing her to 4 months in prison followed by 68 months of supervised release. McLean's counsel argued there were no meritorious issues for appeal but questioned if the 68 month supervised release term was plainly unreasonable. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding the sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable given the court's consideration of relevant factors and statutory guidelines. The 68 month supervised release term was found to be within the court's broad discretion and not plainly unreasonable.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4843

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TRACI LYNN MCLEAN, a/k/a Fat Tracy,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00086-IMK-JSK-1)

Submitted:

April 24, 2014

Decided:

May 2, 2014

Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

L. Richard Walker, Senior Litigator, Kristen Leddy, Research &


Writing Specialist, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE, Clarksburg,
West Virginia, for Appellant.
Shawn Angus Morgan, Assistant
United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Traci

Lynn

McLean

appeals

the

district

courts

judgment entered after the court revoked supervised release and


sentenced McLean to four months imprisonment and sixty-eight
months supervised release.
accordance

with

Anders

McLeans counsel filed a brief in

v.

California,

386

U.S.

738

(1967),

asserting that there are no meritorious issues for review, but


questioning

whether

the

sixty-eight

release was plainly unreasonable.

month

term

of

supervised

McLean was notified of the

opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief, but chose not


to do so.

The Government did not file a brief.


This

court

reviews

district

We affirm.
courts

judgment

revoking supervised release and imposing a term of imprisonment


for abuse of discretion.

United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d

279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999).

A sentence imposed after revocation

of supervised release should be affirmed if it is within the


applicable statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006).
In making this determination, the court first considers whether
the

sentence

unreasonable.

imposed

is

Id. at 438.

procedurally

or

substantively

This initial inquiry takes a more

deferential appellate 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) (internal quotation marks omitted).


A

sentence

procedurally
Chapter

imposed

reasonable

Seven

if

policy

upon

the

revocation

district

statements

and

of

court

the

release

considered

applicable

is
the

3553

factors, see 18 U.S.C. 3583(e) (2012); Crudup, 461 F.3d at


438-40, and adequately explained the sentence imposed, United
States

v.

sentence

Thompson,

imposed

reasonable

if

concluding

that

595

upon

the

F.3d

revocation

district

the

544,
of

court

defendant

547

(4th

Cir.

release

stated

should

imposed, within the statutory maximum.

is

2010).

substantively

proper

receive

the

basis

for

sentence

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.

The court should affirm if the sentence is not unreasonable.


Id.

at

439.

Only

if

sentence

is

found

procedurally

or

substantively unreasonable will the court decide whether the


sentence is plainly unreasonable.

Id.

[T]he court ultimately

has broad discretion to revoke its previous sentence and impose


a

term

of

imprisonment

up

to

the

statutory

maximum.

Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted).


We have reviewed the record and the district courts
reasons for ordering the sentence at issue and conclude that it
was not plainly unreasonable.

We note that the court considered

appropriate factors before ordering the sentence at issue.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record


in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm McLeans sentence.

This court requires that

counsel inform McLean, in writing, of the right to petition the


Supreme

Court

of

the

United

States

for

further

review.

If

McLean 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.

Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof was served on


McLean.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

You might also like