UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4556
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEVEN JOHN HAYES GRANT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District
Judge. (3:00-cr-00065-nkm-3)
Submitted: September 24, 2008 Decided: October 16, 2008
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Andrea L. Harris,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
Appellant. Julia C. Dudley, Acting United States Attorney, Jean B.
Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steven John Hayes Grant appeals his sentence of thirty-
six months of imprisonment imposed after the district court revoked
his supervised release. We affirm.
On appeal, Grant argues that the district court erred by
failing to adequately explain its imposition of a sentence that is
outside the Guidelines* range. He further contends that his
sentence is unnecessary under the circumstances and inconsistent
with any reasonable weighing of the court’s sentencing
considerations. Grant does not contest the district court’s
decision to revoke his supervised release or the district court’s
Guidelines calculations. The Government responds that the district
court’s sentence is not unreasonable.
Because Grant did not object to the district court’s
failure to articulate the reasons for its sentence, we review for
plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993);
United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547 (4th Cir. 2005). In
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2005), we held
that “revocation sentences should be reviewed to determine whether
they are ‘plainly unreasonable’ with regard to those [18 U.S.C.A.]
§ 3553(a) [West 2000 & Supp. 2008] factors applicable to supervised
release revocation sentences.” We recognized that analysis of a
sentence imposed on revocation of supervised release involves both
*
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2000).
2
procedural and substantive components. Id. at 438. A sentencing
court must provide a sufficient explanation of the sentence to
allow “effective review of [its] reasonableness” on appeal. United
States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 657 (4th Cir. 2007) (probation
revocation). The court need not “robotically tick through
§ 3553(a)’s every subsection,” or “explicitly discuss every
§ 3353(a) factor on the record.” United States v. Johnson, 445
F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006).
Our review of the record in this case leads us to
conclude that the district court’s reasons supporting its
sentencing decision are sufficiently apparent from the record. We
conclude that the sentence is neither procedurally nor
substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Finley, 531 F.3d
288, 297 (4th Cir. 2008).
We therefore affirm Grant’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