UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4654
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROLANDER YARBAROU GRICE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:03-cr-00013-FDW-1)
Submitted: April 19, 2011 Decided: May 3, 2011
Before KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
C. Dennis Gibson, DENNIS GIBSON LAW, PLLC, Ridgecrest, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States
Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rolander Yarbarou Grice was sentenced to a twelve
month and one day term of imprisonment following the revocation
of his supervised release. Grice’s counsel filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
his opinion that there are no meritorious issue for appeal but
questioning whether Grice’s sentence was reasonable. Grice was
notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but
has not filed a brief. The Government has declined to file a
responsive brief. We affirm.
We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of
supervised release if it is not plainly unreasonable. United
States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010). The
first step in this review requires a determination of whether
the sentence is unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d
433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). “This initial inquiry takes a more
‘deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the
exercise of discretion’ than reasonableness review for
guidelines sentences.” United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652,
656 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439) (applying
“plainly unreasonable” standard of review for probation
revocation). Only if the sentence is procedurally or
substantively unreasonable does the inquiry proceed to the
2
second step of the analysis to determine whether the sentence is
plainly unreasonable. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-39.
A supervised release revocation sentence is
procedurally reasonable if the district court considered the
advisory policy statement range based upon Chapter Seven of the
Sentencing Guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors applicable to
supervised release revocation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2006);
Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-40. A sentence is substantively
reasonable if the district court stated a proper basis for
concluding the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up
to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. “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.” Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal
quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record leads us to
conclude that the sentence imposed after Grice’s supervised
release revocation was not plainly unreasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
This court requires that counsel inform Grice, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Grice requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
3
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Grice.
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