UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4302
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RICKY BRIAN RIDINGS,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:08-cr-00823-PMD-1)
Submitted: January 19, 2011 Decided: February 16, 2011
Before KING, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cameron J. Blazer, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Michael Rhett
DeHart, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Following a hearing, the district court revoked Ricky
Ridings’ probation and sentenced him to twenty-four months in
prison, to be followed by three years on supervised release.
Ridings now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), claiming the sentence
is unreasonable but stating that there are no meritorious issues
for appeal. Ridings was advised of his right to file a pro se
brief, but did not file such a brief. We affirm.
At the revocation hearing, Ridings admitted that he
had violated certain terms of probation as charged. The parties
agreed that Ridings, who was in criminal history category I, had
committed Grade C violations, and that the recommended
Guidelines range was three - nine months in prison. See U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4, p.s. (2008). After
hearing from counsel and Ridings, the district court revoked
probation and imposed sentence.
In the Anders brief, counsel argues that the sentence
is unreasonable. “[W]e review probation revocation sentences,
like supervised release revocation sentences, to determine if
they are plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Moulden, 478
F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). We first consider whether the
sentence is unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d
433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). In determining reasonableness, we
2
follow generally the procedural and substantive considerations
employed in reviewing original sentences. Id. “This initial
inquiry takes a more ‘deferential appellate posture concerning
issues of fact and the exercise of discretion’ than
reasonableness review for guidelines sentences.” Moulden, 478
F.3d at 656 (quoting Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439). If a sentence
imposed upon revocation is reasonable, we will not consider
whether it is plainly unreasonable and will affirm. Crudup, 461
F.3d at 439.
Here, our review of the record reveals that the
sentence is reasonable. The district court correctly calculated
the Guidelines range and sentenced Ridings within the statutory
maximum of ten years, see 18 U.S.C. § 2314 (2006). While the
twenty-four-month sentence is above the advisory Guidelines
range, the district court adequately expressed its reason for
the variance. Specifically, the court observed that Ridings had
engaged in criminal activity while on probation and had thereby
“gamed the system” in disregard of the court’s leniency at his
original sentencing, where the court imposed probation, rather
than a term of imprisonment.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm. This court requires that counsel
inform Ridings, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme
3
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 of the motion was served on
Ridings. 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