UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4694
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID EZEL SIMPSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (5:02-cr-00043-LHT-1)
Submitted: April 9, 2009 Decided: April 21, 2009
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Ann L. Hester, Rahwa
Gebre-Egziabher, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA,
INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F.
Shappert, United States Attorney, Mark A. Jones, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Ezel Simpson appeals his thirty-six month
sentence imposed on revocation of his supervised release. We
affirm.
On appeal, Simpson argues that the sentence imposed is
plainly unreasonable because the district court erred by failing
to explain adequately its reasons for imposing the sentence.
Simpson does not challenge the district court’s decision to
revoke his supervised release or its guidelines calculations.
The Government responds that the district court’s sentence is
not unreasonable.
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.] § 3553(a) factors applicable to
supervised release revocation sentences.” Although the district
court must consider the Chapter Seven policy statements and the
requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (2006), “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 citation
omitted). A sentencing court must provide a sufficient
explanation of the sentence to allow effective review of its
reasonableness on appeal. See United States v. Moulden, 478
2
F.3d 652, 657 (4th Cir. 2007) (probation revocation). However,
the court need not “robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every
subsection.” Id. (quoting United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d
339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006)).
Our review of the record in this case convinces us
that the district court’s reasons for 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)
(applying Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007), in
reviewing a sentence to determine if it is plainly
unreasonable).
Simpson also asks the court to revisit our holding in
Crudup and instead find that a reasonableness inquiry applies to
revocation sentences. However, even if we were inclined to do
so, a panel of this court cannot overrule the decision of a
prior panel. See United States v. Roseboro, 551 F.3d 226, 234
(4th Cir. 2009).
We therefore affirm Simpson’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