United States v. Thomas Robinson ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4751
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THOMAS JERMAINE ROBINSON, a/k/a Tony,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:05-cr-00667-TLW-1)
Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 3, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Meetze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant
United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Robinson appeals his forty-month sentence
imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. On appeal,
Robinson’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether
Robinson’s sentence is plainly unreasonable. Although notified
of his right to do so, Robinson has not filed a pro se
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
sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release if it is
within the applicable statutory maximum and not plainly
unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th
Cir. 2006). In determining whether a revocation sentence is
plainly unreasonable, we first assess the sentence for
procedural and substantive unreasonableness. Id. at 438-39. In
this initial inquiry, we take 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). “In exercising its discretion . . .,
a district court is guided by the Chapter Seven policy
2
statements in the federal Guidelines manual, as well as the
statutory factors applicable to revocation sentences under 18
U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e).” Webb, 738 F.3d at 641.
A supervised release revocation sentence is
procedurally reasonable if the district court properly
calculates the Guidelines range and adequately explains the
sentence after considering the Chapter Seven advisory policy
statements and the appropriate § 3553(a) factors. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e) (2012); United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547
(4th Cir. 2010). A revocation sentence is substantively
reasonable if the district court states a proper basis for
concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence
imposed, up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.
Only if a sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable
will we “then decide whether the sentence is plainly
unreasonable.” Id. at 439. A sentence is plainly unreasonable
if it is clearly or obviously unreasonable. Id.In this case, the record reveals no procedural or
substantive error by the district court. We thus conclude that
Robinson’s sentence is not plainly unreasonable. 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 Robinson’s
supervised release and the sentence the court imposed. This
3
court requires that counsel inform Robinson, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Robinson 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 Robinson. 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
4