UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4149
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ADRIAN G. VANLEEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh,
District Judge. (3:07-cr-00027-GMG-DJJ-1)
Submitted: August 14, 2013 Decided: August 21, 2013
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nicholas J. Compton, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. William J.
Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Paul T. Camilletti,
Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adrian G. Vanleen appeals the district court’s
judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to
three months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but
questioning whether the district court erred by imposing a
three-month sentence, given the sentencing factors set forth in
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), and whether the magistrate judge
erred in finding probable cause to forward the case to the
district court for a final revocation hearing. After a careful
review of the record, we affirm.
We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of
supervised release if it is within the applicable statutory
range and not “plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Crudup,
461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). “In determining whether a
sentence is plainly unreasonable, we first decide whether the
sentence is unreasonable, . . . follow[ing] generally the
procedural and substantive considerations that we employ in our
review of original sentences.” Id. at 438. In this inquiry, we
“take[] a more deferential appellate posture concerning issues
of fact and the exercise of discretion than reasonableness
review for guidelines sentences.” United States v. Moulden, 478
2
F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
A supervised release revocation sentence is
procedurally reasonable if the district court properly
calculates the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Chapter Seven
advisory policy statement range and explains the sentence
adequately, after considering the policy statements and the
§ 3553(a) factors it is permitted to consider in a supervised
release revocation case. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2006); Crudup,
461 F.3d at 439. A revocation sentence is substantively
reasonable if the district court states a proper basis for
concluding the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up
to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. Only if we
find a sentence unreasonable must we decide “whether it is
‘plainly’ so.” Moulden, 478 F.3d at 657.
Counsel does not claim that Vanleen’s sentence is
procedurally unreasonable. Rather, counsel asserts that the
sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is “greater
than necessary” to achieve the purposes of sentencing.
Specifically, counsel argues that the sentence overstates the
seriousness of Vanleen’s misconduct and fails to take into
account his age and health. The district court imposed a
sentence at the low end of Vanleen’s applicable Guidelines range
of three to nine months, fully explaining its decision to impose
3
the three-month sentence and taking into account the nature of
Vanleen’s misconduct and his age. We therefore conclude that
the sentence is not plainly unreasonable.
Counsel also questions whether the magistrate judge
erred in determining that there was probable cause to forward
the case to the district court. In making a finding of probable
cause, a magistrate judge must “simply . . . make a practical,
common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances . . .
before him, . . . there is a fair probability that” the
individual violated the terms of supervised release. Illinois
v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). Based on the information
presented during Vanleen’s preliminary revocation hearing, we
conclude that the magistrate judge had probable cause to believe
that Vanleen committed violations of his supervised release.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Vanleen, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Vanleen 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 Vanleen.
4
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
5