UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4362
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRANDON ONTRELL WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:07-cr-01122-PMD-1)
Submitted: September 20, 2013 Decided: September 26, 2013
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cameron J. Blazer, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Nathan S. Williams,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brandon Ontrell Williams appeals the district court’s
judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to
six months’ imprisonment followed by the remainder of his period
of supervised release, less his six month sentence. Williams’
attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious
arguments for appeal and that Williams’ sentence was not plainly
unreasonable. Williams was notified of his right to file a pro
se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.
We review a district court’s judgment revoking
supervised release and imposing a term of imprisonment for abuse
of discretion. United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th
Cir. 1992). We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation
of supervised release if it is within the prescribed statutory
range and not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup,
461 F.3d 433, 439–40 (4th Cir. 2006). We first consider whether
the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Id.
at 438. In this initial inquiry, we take a more deferential
posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion
than reasonableness review for Guidelines sentences. United
States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). Only if
we find the sentence procedurally or substantively unreasonable
must we decide whether it is “plainly” so. Id. at 657.
2
While a district court must consider the Chapter Seven
policy statements and the statutory factors applicable to
revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e) (West
2000 & Supp. 2013), the court need not robotically tick through
every subsection, and ultimately, the court has broad discretion
to revoke the previous sentence and impose a term of
imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. Id. at 656–57.
Moreover, while a district court must provide a statement of
reasons for the sentence, the court need not be as detailed or
specific when imposing a revocation sentence as when imposing a
post-conviction sentence. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d
544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
court properly revoked supervised release, that Williams’
sentence is reasonable, and that the district court did not
abuse its discretion. Williams admitted to the three
violations. The sentence is within the prescribed statutory
range and the Chapter Seven policy statement range, and the
district court reasonably determined that a sentence at the low
end of the range was appropriate in this case. Moreover, in
accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and
have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing,
3
of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States
for further review. If the client 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 the client. 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
4