United States v. Henry Cooper , 590 F. App'x 255 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4541
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HENRY JEROME COOPER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:03-cr-00106-JLK-1)
Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 26, 2015
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine
Lee, Research and Writing Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, R. Andrew
Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Henry Jerome Cooper appeals the district court’s
judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to
twenty-four months’ imprisonment. Cooper contends that his
sentence is plainly unreasonable. Finding no error, 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 after 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
unreasonableness, following the procedural and substantive
considerations that are at issue in review of original
sentences. 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 statements in the federal Guidelines
manual, as well as the statutory factors applicable to
2
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) (2014); 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.
Our review of the record reveals no procedural or
substantive error by the district court. We thus conclude that
Cooper’s sentence is not plainly unreasonable. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s judgment. 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