UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4519
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JERRY JOHNSON,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00104-IMK-5)
Submitted: April 21, 2011 Decided: May 4, 2011
Before SHEDD and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roger D. Curry, CURRY AMOS & ASSOCIATES, L.C., Fairmont, West
Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United
States Attorney, Zelda E. Wesley, Assistant United States
Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerry Johnson appeals the 151-month sentence imposed
following the district court’s revocation of his probation. On
appeal, Johnson contends that the district court imposed a
plainly unreasonable sentence. Finding no reversible error, we
affirm.
We treat sentences imposed upon revocation of
supervised release and probation similarly and therefore review
the sentences imposed in either situation under the same plainly
unreasonable standard. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652,
655-56 (4th Cir. 2007). When a defendant violates terms of his
probation, the district court may revoke the probationary period
and resentence the defendant to a term of imprisonment up to the
statutory maximum for the original offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a)
(2006); Moulden, 478 F.3d at 657. The district court has broad
discretion to impose a probation revocation sentence. Moulden,
478 F.3d at 657. Thus, we assume “a deferential appellate
posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of [that]
discretion,” United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439 (4th
Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted), and will affirm
unless the sentence is “plainly unreasonable” in light of the
applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. Id. at 437.
2
Our first step is to “decide whether the sentence is
unreasonable.” Id. at 438. In doing so, “we follow generally
the procedural and substantive considerations” employed in
reviewing original sentences. Id. A sentence is procedurally
reasonable if the district court has considered the policy
statements contained in Chapter Seven of the Guidelines and the
§ 3553(a) factors, id. at 439, and has adequately explained the
sentence chosen, though it need not explain the sentence in as
much detail as when imposing the original sentence. Moulden,
478 F.3d at 657. A sentence is substantively reasonable if the
district court states a proper basis for its imposition of a
sentence up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.
If, after considering the above, we determine that the sentence
is not unreasonable, we will affirm. Id. at 439.
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
revocation sentence is procedurally and substantively
reasonable. Accordingly, we deny Johnson’s motion to file a pro
se supplemental brief and affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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
3