UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4869
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM PRESTON DRAKE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:05-cr-00022-JAB-3)
Submitted: June 10, 2011 Decided: June 28, 2011
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas H. Johnson, Jr., GRAY, JOHNSON & LAWSON, LLP, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States
Attorney, Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Preston Drake appeals the twenty-four month
sentence he received upon revocation of his supervised release.
The district court has broad discretion to impose a sentence
upon revoking a defendant’s supervised release. United States
v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). Thus, this
court will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of
supervised release if it is within the governing statutory range
and not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d
433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). Before determining whether the
sentence is “plainly unreasonable” we must decide whether it is
unreasonable. Id. at 438. In doing so, we “follow generally
the procedural and substantive considerations” used in reviewing
original sentences. Id. For the reasons stated below, we
affirm.
A sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district
court has considered the policy statements contained in Chapter
7 of the Guidelines and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006) factors, id. at 440, and has adequately explained the
sentence chosen, though it need not explain the sentence in as
much detail as when imposing the original sentence. Thompson,
595 F.3d at 547. 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.
2
If, after considering the above, we are convinced that the
sentence is not unreasonable, we will affirm. Id. at 439. In
this initial inquiry, this court takes a more deferential
posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion
than it does in applying the reasonableness review to post-
conviction guidelines sentences. United States v. Moulden, 478
F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007).
Under our deferential standard of review, Drake’s
sentence is not plainly unreasonable. After the district court
expressly considered the applicable Chapter 7 policy statement
and the advisory revocation Guidelines range of twenty-one to
twenty-four months, the district court imposed a within-
Guidelines twenty-four month sentence. It thoroughly explained
its rationale for the sentence, drawing on several of the
§ 3553(a) factors, including Drake’s history and
characteristics, emphasizing his history of recidivism; the need
to protect the public from his further crimes; and the need to
deter Drake from continued criminal activity. Thus, the
district court met its obligation to “set forth enough to
satisfy the appellate court that [it] has considered the
parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its]
own legal decisionmaking authority,” Rita v. United States, 551
U.S. 338, 356 (2007), and stated a proper basis for its
imposition of the chosen sentence, Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.
3
Accordingly, we conclude that Drake’s twenty-four
month sentence is reasonable. We therefore 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