United States v. Jarred Barclay
670 F. App'x 797
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Appellant Jarred Barclay appealed the district court’s revocation of his supervised release and imposition of a 14‑month prison term.
- Counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious issues but questioning whether the sentence was plainly unreasonable; the Government declined to file a brief.
- Barclay was notified of his right to file a pro se brief but did not do so.
- The district court’s sentence fell within the statutory range for supervised release revocation.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed for plain unreasonableness, considering procedural and substantive reasonableness standards for revocation sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 14‑month revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable | Barclay (via Anders) suggested potential plain‑unreasonableness of the sentence | Government declined to press an argument; district court relied on statutory and guideline considerations | Court held sentence was not plainly unreasonable and affirmed |
| Whether district court followed procedural requirements for revocation sentencing | Implicit challenge that procedures or §3553(a) factors may not have been properly considered | District court considered Chapter 7 advisory policy statements and §3553(a) factors permissible on revocation | Court found procedural requirements satisfied |
| Whether the sentence is substantively reasonable | Implicit suggestion sentence might be excessive | District court provided a proper basis for imposing a term up to the statutory maximum | Court found substantive basis adequate |
| Whether appellate counsel properly raised issues under Anders | Barclay’s counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious issues | Government elected not to file brief; court reviewed entire record per Anders | Court performed full review and found no meritorious issues; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for counsel to request withdrawal when briefed issues are frivolous)
- United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir. 2006) (standards for review of supervised release revocation sentences)