UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4888
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALFRED CAGLE, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:01-cr-00350-NCT-2)
Submitted: April 6, 2011 Decided: April 27, 2011
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark E. Edwards, EDWARDS & TRENKLE, PLLC, Durham, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Sandra J. Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alfred Cagle, Jr., appeals the eighteen-month sentence
imposed by the district court upon revocation of his supervised
release. Cagle does not dispute that he violated the conditions
of his release, but instead challenges the reasonableness of the
sentence. We affirm.
“This court reviews whether or not sentences imposed
upon revocation of supervised release are within the prescribed
statutory range and are not ‘plainly unreasonable.’” United
States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010) (citation
omitted). The first step in this review is to determine whether
the sentence imposed is unreasonable. Id. In this initial
inquiry, we take “a more deferential posture concerning issues
of fact and the exercise of discretion” than we do when applying
the reasonableness review to post-conviction Guidelines
sentences. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th
Cir. 2007) (internal quotations and citation omitted). If the
revocation sentence is unreasonable, we must then determine
whether it is plainly so. Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547.
The advisory ranges for revocation sentences set forth
in Chapter Seven of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual are
non-binding policy statements. “Though a district court must
consider the Chapter Seven policy statements and other statutory
provisions applicable to revocation sentences, the court has
2
broad discretion to impose a particular sentence.” Thompson,
595 F.3d at 547. Despite this discretion, a district court must
sufficiently explain its rationale behind the sentence imposed:
A district court commits significant procedural error
where it fails to adequately explain the chosen
sentence. This requirement applies regardless of
whether the district court imposes an above, below, or
within-Guidelines sentence. A court need not be as
detailed or specific when imposing a revocation
sentence as it must be when imposing a post-conviction
sentence, but it still must provide a statement of
reasons for the sentence imposed.
Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Cagle’s statutory maximum term of imprisonment upon
revocation of supervised release was three years under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(3). The term of eighteen months’ imprisonment imposed
by the district court was within the statutory maximum.
Although the district court was initially mistaken about the
proper advisory range, it is clear that this error was corrected
and the district court considered the correct range before
imposing Cagle’s sentence. The court specifically stated that
it was varying upward from the advisory eight- to fourteen-
month range. The court sufficiently explained its rationale for
imposing the sentence, repeatedly stressing the danger to the
public inherent in Cagle’s violation conduct.
Accordingly, we affirm the eighteen-month revocation
sentence imposed by the district court. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
3
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4