UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4882
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CHARLES ORLANDO SIMMONS, a/k/a Darryl McMillan, a/k/a Big
Flip,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:07-cr-01037-RBH-1)
Submitted: April 10, 2014 Decided: May 1, 2014
Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Orlando Simmons appeals from the revocation of
his supervised release and his resulting eighteen-month prison
term. On appeal, Simmons’ attorney has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in
which he asserts that there are no meritorious issues for appeal
but questions whether Simmons’ sentence is plainly unreasonable.
Although advised of his right to file a supplemental pro se
brief, Simmons has not done so. After our review of the record,
we affirm.
We review a district court’s judgment revoking
supervised release and imposing a term of imprisonment for abuse
of discretion. United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th
Cir. 1999). A sentence imposed after revocation of supervised
release should be affirmed if it is within the applicable
statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. United
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). In
making this determination, we first consider whether the
sentence imposed is procedurally or substantively unreasonable.
Id. at 438. “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)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
2
A sentence imposed upon revocation of release is
procedurally reasonable if the district court considered the
Chapter Seven Policy Statements and the applicable 18 U.S.C. §
3553 (2012) factors, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012); Crudup, 461
F.3d at 438-40, and adequately explained the sentence imposed,
United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). A
sentence imposed upon revocation of release is substantively
reasonable if the district court stated a proper basis for
concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence
imposed, within the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.
We affirm if the sentence is not unreasonable. Id. at 439.
Only if a sentence is found procedurally or substantively
unreasonable will we “decide whether the sentence is plainly
unreasonable.” Id. “[T]he court ultimately has broad
discretion to revoke its previous sentence and impose a term of
imprisonment up to the statutory maximum.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that Simmons’ sentence is both
procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court
considered the Chapter 7 Policy Statements and relevant
statutory factors (including the nature and circumstances of the
offense and Simmons’ failure to comply with the terms of
supervised release), and properly imposed a sentence within the
policy statement range and below the statutory maximum.
3
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This
court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If the client requests that a petition be
filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to
withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4