UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy Tyrone BYERS, Defendant-Appellant.
Decided: June 17, 2019
Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Kristen M. Leddy, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kimberley DeAnne Crockett, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, Virginia, for Appellee.
Timothy Tyrone Byers appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a sentence of 21 months of imprisonment. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the reasonableness of Byers’ sentence. Byers has filed a pro se supplemental brief generally alleging that he is entitled to additional custody credit. 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 that “is within the prescribed statutory range and is not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 440 (4th Cir. 2006). “When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, [we] must first determine whether it is unreasonable at all.” United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010). Only if a sentence is either procedurally or substantively unreasonable is a determination then made as to whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Byers’ within-range sentence—to which he agreed—is not unreasonable, much less plainly so. To the extent Byers seeks credit for time spent in state custody, it is the responsibility of the Attorney General, not a court, to determine whether an inmate should receive credit for time served prior to commencing a federal term of imprisonment. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 334, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992).
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 judgment of the district court. This court requires that counsel inform Byers, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Byers 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 Byers.
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 by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.