UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4586
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL EDWARD CARR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Lacy H. Thornburg, District
Judge. (4:97-cr-00274)
Submitted: January 29, 2008 Decided: February 22, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Fredilyn Sison, FEDERAL
DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States
Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Edward Carr appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-one
months’ imprisonment, a sentence at the bottom of the applicable
range based on the non-binding federal sentencing guidelines policy
statement. Carr contends that the sentence is 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.
Although, as Carr contends, the district court provided
no explanation for its sentence, it is undisputed that the district
court properly calculated the applicable range and imposed a
sentence at the bottom of that range. We find nothing clearly or
- 2 -
obviously erroneous in the sentence imposed by the district court.
See United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 657 (4th Cir. 2007)
(defining plainly unreasonable sentence as one that is clearly or
obviously erroneous).
Accordingly, we affirm Carr’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 -