UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4707
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRIAN LAMONT TURNER,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon,
District Judge. (3:07-cr-00013-nkm-1)
Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: November 10, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Frederick T. Heblich,
Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine
Spurell, Research and Writing Attorney, for Appellant. Julia C.
Dudley, Acting United States Attorney, Ronald M. Huber,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brian Lamont Turner appeals the district court’s
judgment after sentencing him for violating the terms of his
supervised release. Turner argues that the twelve-month
sentence was plainly unreasonable given that he had a job and
entered a drug treatment program. Finding no error, 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). This court
explained that it must first assess the sentence for
reasonableness, “follow[ing] generally the procedural and
substantive considerations that we employ in our review of
original sentences, . . . with some necessary modifications to
take into account the unique nature of supervised release
revocation sentences.” Id. at 438-39 (internal citation
omitted); see United States v. Finley, 531 F.3d 288, 294 (4th
Cir. 2008) (“In applying the ‘plainly unreasonable’ standard, we
first determine, using the instructions given in Gall [v. United
States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007)], whether a sentence is
‘unreasonable.’”). If this court concludes that a sentence is
reasonable, it should affirm the sentence. Crudup, 461 F.3d at
439. Only if a sentence is found procedurally or substantively
unreasonable will this court “decide whether the sentence is
2
plainly unreasonable.” Id.; see Finley, 531 F.3d at 294.
Although the district court must consider the Chapter 7 policy
statements and the requirements of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 3553(a), 3583
(West 2000 & Supp. 2008), “the [district] 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).
We find no procedural or substantive error with
respect to the sentence and further find the sentence was
reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the 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