UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4674
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES CURTIS GALLOWAY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:97-cr-00067-BR-1)
Submitted: June 28, 2010 Decided: August 18, 2010
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Charles Curtis Galloway appeals the district court’s
imposition of a fifty-seven month sentence following revocation
of his supervised release. On appeal, Galloway contends that
the district court imposed a plainly unreasonable sentence
because it failed to address his arguments for a lower sentence.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
The district court has broad discretion to impose a
sentence upon revoking a defendant’s supervised release. United
States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). We will
affirm unless the sentence is “plainly unreasonable” in light of
the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. United
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006).
Our first step in reviewing a sentence imposed upon a
revocation of supervised release is to decide whether the
sentence is unreasonable. Id. at 438. In doing so, we
generally follow “the procedural and substantive considerations”
employed in reviewing original sentences. Id. “A district
court commits significant procedural error where it ‘fail[s] to
adequately explain the chosen sentence.’” Thompson, 595 F.3d at
547 (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)).
While the district court need not explain the reasons for the
sentence in as much detail as when imposing the original
sentence, “it still must provide a statement of reasons for the
2
sentence imposed.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Additionally, the district court should address the defendant’s
nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a sentence different from the
advisory sentencing range. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).
In some cases, “a district court’s reasoning for
imposing a within-range sentence may be clear from context . . .
including the court’s statements to the defendant throughout the
sentencing hearing.” Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547. Unless the
district court completely fails to indicate any reasons for its
sentence, “[w]e may be hard-pressed to find any explanation for
within-range, revocation sentences insufficient given the amount
of deference we afford district courts when imposing these
sentences.” Id. If we determine that the sentence is not
unreasonable, we will affirm. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439.
We conclude that Galloway’s revocation sentence is
reasonable. While the district court’s explanation was brief,
its rationale is clear – it imposed a sentence at the top of
Galloway’s Guidelines range because of his history of supervised
release violations. This rationale also implicitly rejects
Galloway’s argument for a below-Guidelines sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4