UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4573
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JONATHAN C. HAMLETTE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:01-cr-00596-CCB-1)
Submitted: February 6, 2009 Decided: February 18, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Sapna Mirchandani, OFFICE
OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellant. Philip S. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Hamlette appeals his sentence of twenty-one
months’ imprisonment and twelve months’ supervised release
imposed after the district court revoked his previous term of
supervised release. In Hamlette’s notice of appeal, he contends
that any sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised
release was limited to two years. Hamlette’s attorney has filed
a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), alleging both that the district court failed to
sufficiently articulate its reasons for imposing a twenty-one
month term of imprisonment and that the sentence imposed is
unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately
consider alternatives to imprisonment. Counsel states, however,
that he has found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We affirm. *
Because Hamlette 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
*
Although Hamlette was informed of his right to file a pro
se supplemental brief, he has not done so.
2
those 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors applicable to
supervised release revocation sentences.” We recognized that
review of a sentence imposed on revocation of supervised release
involves both 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 find that the district court
complied with all relevant statutory provisions in imposing his
sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and found no meritorious issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm Hamlette’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Hamlette, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
3
further review. If Hamlette requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Hamlette. 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
4