UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5092
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RONNIE DIXON,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:04-cr-00441-F-1)
Submitted: March 18, 2011 Decided: March 24, 2011
Before WILKINSON, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, James E. Todd, Jr., Research
and Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
George E.B. Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-
Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Dixon, who was sentenced to five years’
probation after pleading guilty in 2005 to failure to pay child
support, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 228(a)(3) (2006), appeals
the district court’s judgment revoking his probation and
sentencing him to twenty-four months in prison. Dixon argues
that his sentence is plainly unreasonable because: (i) the
district court failed to respond to his request for a reduction
in his monthly child support amount based on his alleged
inability to pay; and (ii) his variant sentence “lacked
sufficiently compelling support.” Finding no error, we affirm
the district court’s judgment.
Upon a finding of a probation violation, the district
court may revoke probation and resentence the defendant to any
sentence within the statutory maximum for the original offense.
18 U.S.C. § 3565(a) (2006); United States v. Schaefer, 120 F.3d
505, 507 (4th Cir. 1997). This court “review[s] 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).
The court first considers whether the sentence is unreasonable.
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006).
This court, in determining reasonableness, follows generally the
procedural and substantive considerations employed in reviewing
2
original sentences. Id. However, “[t]his initial inquiry takes
a more deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact
and the exercise of discretion than reasonableness review for
[G]uidelines sentences.” Moulden, 478 F.3d at 656 (internal
quotation marks omitted).
The district court’s discretion is not unlimited,
however. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir.
2010). For instance, the district court commits procedural
error by failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence or by
not providing an individualized assessment based on the facts.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Although "[a]
court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a
revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a post-
conviction sentence, . . . it still must provide a statement of
reasons for the sentence imposed." Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547
(internal quotation marks omitted). The district judge also
must “set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he
has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis
for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.” United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Although the court generally reviews preserved
sentencing errors for an abuse of discretion, reversing only if
an error is not harmless, this court will review a procedural
3
sentencing error raised for the first time on appeal for plain
error. See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575-79 (4th
Cir. 2010). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
district court committed no error, plain or otherwise, when it
imposed Dixon’s twenty-four-month sentence. Accordingly, we
conclude that Dixon’s sentence is not plainly unreasonable.
Moulden, 478 F.3d at 656.
We thus affirm the district court’s judgment. 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