United States v. Toboris Buie , 713 F. App'x 188 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4238
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TOBORIS TANTON BUIE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:01-cr-00288-NCT-1)
Submitted: November 21, 2017 Decided: November 30, 2017
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra Jane Hairston, Acting United States Attorney, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Toboris Tanton Buie appeals from the district court’s judgment and commitment
order revoking his supervised release and imposing a 20-month sentence. Counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are
no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether Buie’s sentence was plainly
unreasonable. Buie filed a pro se supplemental brief raising two issues. The Government
has declined to file a brief. We affirm.
We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is
within the prescribed statutory range and is not plainly unreasonable. United States v.
Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438-40 (4th Cir. 2006). While a district court must consider the
Chapter Seven policy statements, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Ch. 7, Pt. B
(2016), and the statutory requirements and factors applicable to revocation sentences
under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e) (2012), the district court ultimately has broad
discretion to revoke supervised release and impose a term of imprisonment up to the
statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-39.
A supervised release revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district
court considered the Chapter 7 advisory policy statements and the § 3553(a) factors it is
permitted to consider in a supervised release revocation case. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e);
Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439-40. A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the
district court stated a proper basis for concluding the defendant should receive the
sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. Only if a
2
sentence is found procedurally or substantively unreasonable will we “then decide
whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable.” Id. at 439 (emphasis omitted).
We discern no error in the district court’s decision to impose a 20-month sentence
and terminate supervision thereafter. The court adequately stated permissible reasons for
the sentence, including Buie’s pattern of continuing criminal conduct that necessitated a
sentence deterring Buie from future criminal conduct and protecting the public. We have
carefully reviewed the record and Anders brief and conclude that Buie’s sentence is not
plainly unreasonable. We find no merit in the claims Buie raises in his informal brief.
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. This
court requires that counsel inform Buie in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Buie 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 Buie. 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