United States v. Jarvis Davis , 696 F. App'x 108 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-4156
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JARVIS ALONZO DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:07-cr-00051-TLW-1)
Submitted: August 17, 2017 Decided: August 21, 2017
Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William F. Nettles, IV, Casey P. Riddle, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jarvis Alonzo Davis appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking his
supervised release and sentencing Davis to a total of 30 months in prison. Davis’ attorney
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he states
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but suggests that we review the
reasonableness of Davis’ sentence. Although advised of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, Davis has not done so. 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)).
“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). A sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court states a
proper basis for concluding the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the
statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. A sentence within the applicable policy
statement range under Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines is presumed reasonable.
United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 494 (2015).
Applying these standards, we readily conclude that Davis’ within-range sentence is neither
procedurally nor substantively unreasonable, and therefore 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.
2
This court requires that counsel inform Davis, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Davis 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 Davis. 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