UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4979
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RONSHON PONE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (7:02-cr-00091-BR)
Submitted: April 9, 2008 Decided: April 18, 2008
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIUM:
Ronshon Tominik Pone appeals the district court’s
judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to
twenty-four months’ imprisonment. Pone contends that the sentence
is plainly 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, as well as the
statutory requirements and factors applicable to parole revocation
sentences under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) & 3583 (2000), the district
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 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 within that
range. We find nothing clearly or obviously erroneous in the
- 2 -
sentence imposed by the district court. See United States v.
Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 657 (4th Cir. 2007) (defining a “plainly
unreasonable sentence” as one that is “clearly” or “obviously”
erroneous).
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 the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -