United States of America v. Jamie William Sites

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4755
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMIE WILLIAM SITES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey,
District Judge. (2:02-cr-00009-JPB-JSK-1)
Submitted: June 29, 2016 Decided: July 8, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Katy J. Cimino, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Kristen M.
Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, Martinsburg, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant
United States Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jamie William Sites appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to eight
months’ imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that she has
found no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether
the sentence was substantively reasonable. Sites was advised of
his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done
so.
“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. In conducting this review, we
assess the sentence for reasonableness, utilizing “the
procedural and substantive considerations” employed in
evaluating an original criminal sentence. United States v.
Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). Only if a sentence
is unreasonable will we “then decide whether the sentence is
plainly unreasonable.” Id. at 439. A sentence that is within a
properly calculated Chapter Seven range is presumed reasonable.
Webb, 738 F.3d at 642. We conclude that Sites fails to rebut
the presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is
reasonable.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious grounds for appeal and have found
none. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Sites, in writing, of
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Sites requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Sites. 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 of 3 --