UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4470
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM ORLEANS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.
(8:07-cr-00163-PJM)
Submitted: December 28, 2007 Decided: January 11, 2008
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Matthew G. Kaiser, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant.
Hollis Raphael Weisman, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Orleans appeals from the revocation of his
probation and the imposition of a sixty-day sentence. Orleans’
counsel has filed an Anders* brief, stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether Orleans’
sentence was plainly unreasonable. Although informed of his right
to do so, Orleans has declined to file a pro se supplemental brief.
We affirm.
We review a sentence imposed upon revocation of probation
to determine whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. United
States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). In doing so,
we first assess whether the sentence is unreasonable, using a more
deferential standard as to issues of fact and the district court’s
exercise of discretion than that applied in reviewing a Guidelines
sentence. Id. If we find the sentence to be reasonable, the
inquiry ends. Id. at 657. If we find the sentence unreasonable,
we must then decide whether it is plainly so. Id. “[T]he
sentencing court retains broad discretion to revoke a defendant’s
probation and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory
maximum.” Id.
We conclude that Orleans’ sentence is procedurally
reasonable because, although Orleans’ offense is not covered by the
Sentencing Guidelines, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
*
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
- 2 -
§ 1B1.9 (2006), the district court expressly considered the
arguments raised by Orleans as well as other relevant factors. It
is substantively reasonable because the district court articulated
its reasons for selecting the sentence, namely, Orleans’ repeated
failure to comply with court orders and traffic laws. In addition,
the sentence is substantially below the statutory maximum of six
months.
Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of Orleans’
probation and his sentence. This court requires that counsel
inform his client in writing of his right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If the client
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 the client. 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 -