UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-5016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LAKEEVIAN JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:08-cr-00193-FL-1)
Submitted: July 8, 2009 Decided: July 29, 2009
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Lakeevian Jones pled guilty to several drug and
firearm offenses and was sentenced to time served, with a four-
year period of supervised release. While on supervised release,
Jones tested positive for marijuana on multiple occasions,
failed to attend drug counseling, and dropped out of a court-
ordered halfway-house program. The district court revoked
Jones’ supervised release and imposed a twenty-eight-month
sentence. Jones appeals, claiming the district court imposed an
unreasonably long sentence. Having reviewed the record, we
affirm.
This court will affirm a sentence imposed after
revocation of supervised release if it is within the applicable
statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. See United
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). We
first assess the sentence for unreasonableness, “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. If
we conclude that a sentence is not unreasonable, we will affirm
the sentence. Id. at 439. Only if a sentence is found
procedurally or substantively unreasonable will this court
“decide whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable.” Id.
2
A supervised release revocation sentence is not
procedurally unreasonable if the district court considered the
U. S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Chapter Seven advisory policy
statement range and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors that
it is permitted to consider in a supervised release revocation
case. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2006); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.
Such a sentence is not substantively unreasonable if the
district court stated a proper basis for concluding the
defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the
statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. A sentence is
plainly unreasonable if it is clearly or obviously unreasonable.
Id. at 439.
In this case, the district court reviewed the
applicable statutory maximum of sixty months and the Guidelines
Chapter Seven policy range of three to nine months. The
district court noted Jones’ multiple violations, which came
after an earlier sanction for failing to comply with the terms
of his release. The district court also noted that Jones’
original sentence was the product of a downward departure.
Finally, the district court noted Jones’ need for drug
treatment, which the court believed could best be achieved in
prison. Having reviewed the record, we find that the district
court’s sentence was not plainly unreasonable.
3
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment
revoking Jones’ supervised release and imposing a twenty-eight-
month prison term. 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