UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4075
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DANIEL RICHARD HANNER, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00333)
Submitted: September 26, 2007 Decided: October 17, 2007
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Emily Marroquin, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC.,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert,
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy E. Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Richard Hanner, Jr., appeals the district court’s
judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to the
statutory maximum sentence of twenty-four months’ imprisonment, a
sentence above the applicable range based on the non-binding
federal sentencing guidelines policy statement. Hanner contends
that the sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
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, 437-39 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1813 (2007).
In making this determination, we first consider whether the
sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Id. at
438-39. Only if a sentence is found to be unreasonable will this
court determine if it is “plainly” so. Id. at 439. Although the
district court must consider the Chapter Seven policy statements,
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ch. 7, pt. B (2006), as well as
the statutory requirements and factors applicable to parole
revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a), 3583 (West 2000
& Supp. 2007), the court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke
the previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the
statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-39.
Hanner argues that his sentence is both procedurally and
substantively unreasonable. Based on Hanner’s numerous violations
of the terms of supervised release, including violating the law by
driving under the influence, and his substance abuse and mental
- 2 -
health difficulties, the district court stated that Hanner’s
supervised release was an “utter failure” and that the statutory
maximum sentence was necessary to protect the public by preventing
Hanner from continuing to drive under the influence and to provide
treatment for his substance abuse and psychiatric issues. Under
the standard articulated in Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440, we find
Hanner’s sentence to be both procedurally and substantively
reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm Hanner’s sentence. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -