UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4102
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
GEORGE TYRONE HILL,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:02-cr-00071-F-1)
Submitted: July 28, 2010 Decided: September 2, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne
M. Hayes, Michael G. James, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
George Tyrone Hill appeals the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-
four months in prison. We affirm.
Hill committed five Grade C supervised release
violations. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.1, p.s.
(2009). His criminal history category was V, and the
recommended range of imprisonment was 7-13 months. See USSG
§ 7B1.4(a), p.s. He contends that the twenty-four-month
sentence is unreasonable.
A sentence imposed following revocation of supervised
release will be affirmed if it is within the applicable
statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. United
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir 2006). A
sentence imposed upon revocation of release is procedurally
reasonable if the district court considered the Chapter Seven
policy statements and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors
that it is permitted to consider. Id. at 438-40. Such a
sentence is substantively reasonable if the court stated a
proper basis for concluding that the defendant should receive
the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. Id. at 440.
We find that Hill’s sentence is procedurally and
substantively reasonable. The district court stated that it had
considered the Chapter 7 policy statements, and announced that
2
it would impose a sentence above the recommended sentencing
range. Although the court did not cite § 3553(a), the court
clearly took into consideration many of the permissible
§ 3553(a) factors when it sentenced Hill. For instance, the
court mentioned Hill’s recent and past history of violent
behavior, the need to protect the public, and Hill’s
unsatisfactory conduct while on supervised release. *
Hill complains that his sentence is unreasonable
because the district court did not address his argument at
sentencing that his work history and abstention from drug use
warranted a sentence within the recommended range. Because he
raises the issue for the first time on appeal, our review is for
plain error. See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578 (4th
Cir. 2010). In light of Hill’s five release violations,
including the commission of criminal conduct and absconding from
release, there is no reasonable probability that he would have
received a shorter sentence had the district court specifically
addressed his argument. Accordingly, Hill has not demonstrated
that the alleged error affected his substantial rights, and
*
Contrary to Hill’s contention that the district court
varied above the recommended sentencing range because of a
recent arrest, the court’s finding of recent violent behavior
was based on Hill’s no contest plea to the charge that he had
violated supervised release by committing an offense. A no
contest plea to a violation of supervised release is treated as
a guilty plea to that violation.
3
there was no plain error. See United States v. Washington, 404
F.3d 834, 849 (4th Cir 2005). We conclude that the court
adequately explained its reasons for imposing the twenty-four-
month 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
4