United States v. Jesse Kessinger , 584 F. App'x 171 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4443
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JESSE LEE KESSINGER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge. (2:09-cr-00035-1)
Submitted: October 9, 2014 Decided: October 17, 2014
Before SHEDD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory J. Campbell, CAMPBELL LAW OFFICE, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Candace Haley Bunn, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jesse Lee Kessinger appeals the six-month sentence of
imprisonment imposed by the district court after revocation of
his supervised release. Counsel has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that
there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning
whether Kessinger’s sentence is plainly unreasonable. Although
notified of his right to do so, Kessinger has not filed a
supplemental brief. We affirm.
“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a
sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” United States
v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). “We will affirm a
revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is
not “‘plainly unreasonable.’” Id. (quoting United States v.
Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006)). “In making this
determination, we first consider whether the sentence imposed is
procedurally or substantively unreasonable.” Id. Only if we so
find will “we . . . then decide whether the sentence is plainly
unreasonable.” Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439.
Here, the district court correctly calculated
Kessinger’s advisory policy statement range and considered the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors applicable to sentencing upon
revocation of supervised release. The district court also
adequately explained the basis for Kessinger’s sentence. Thus,
2
we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion
in sentencing Kessinger.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment
revoking Kessinger’s supervised release and the sentence the
court imposed. This Court requires that counsel inform
Kessinger, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Kessinger
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. Counsel’s
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Kessinger.
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
3