UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4192
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
COLIN ANTHONY BABB,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:04-cr-00326-F-1)
Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: November 7, 2008
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 CURIAM:
Colin Anthony Babb appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his supervised release. On appeal, Babb contends that his
twenty-four month sentence is unreasonable because the court
imposed the sentence based on its previous warning that it would
impose the statutorily authorized maximum term if Babb committed
additional violations of the conditions of his supervised release
during a hearing on a prior revocation motion. Therefore, he
argues that the court failed to “make an individualized assessment
based on the facts presented.” We affirm.
We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of
supervised release if it is within the applicable statutory maximum
and is not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d
433, 437, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1813
(2007). Although the district court must consider the Chapter
Seven policy statements and the requirements of 18 U.S.C.A.
§§ 3553(a), 3583 (West 2000 & Supp. 2008), “the court ultimately
has broad discretion to revoke its previous sentence and impose a
term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum.” Crudup, 461
F.3d at 439 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
district court sufficiently considered the Chapter Seven policy
statements and the relevant statutory factors, and adequately
articulated its basis for imposing the maximum authorized term of
2
imprisonment. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-40. The court specifically
addressed Babb’s violations, his failure to obtain lawful
employment and failure to report his arrest. The court expressed
concern about Babb’s continued violations despite its prior
leniency and explicitly asked for and considered Babb’s explanation
for the violations. These facts demonstrate that, contrary to
Babb’s claim, the sentence imposed was based on Babb’s history,
characteristics, and his specific violations.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment
revoking Babb’s supervised release and imposing a twenty-four month
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