UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4852
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO DEVON MITCHELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:11-cr-00113-F-1)
Submitted: August 7, 2014 Decided: August 13, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Devon Mitchell appeals the twenty-four month
statutory maximum sentence imposed by the district court upon
revocation of his term of supervised release. On appeal,
Mitchell contends that the district court’s sentence was plainly
unreasonable. Finding no error, we affirm.
The district court has broad discretion to impose a
sentence after revoking a defendant’s supervised release.
United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). 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).
We must “first 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 advisory
policy statements contained in Chapter 7 of the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)
factors, id. at 439, and has provided some explanation for the
sentence chosen. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547
(4th Cir. 2010). A sentence is substantively reasonable if the
court states a proper basis for concluding that the defendant
2
should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory
maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. Only if we find a sentence
to be procedurally or substantively unreasonable will we
consider whether the sentence is “plainly” unreasonable. Id. at
439.
Applying our deferential standard of review, we
conclude that Mitchell’s sentence was not unreasonable, much
less plainly so. The district court has “broad discretion to
. . . impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory
maximum.” Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439 (internal quotation marks
omitted). Given the facts of this case, we conclude that the
district court did not abuse its broad discretion in imposing
the statutory maximum of twenty-four months’ imprisonment upon
revocation of Mitchell’s term of supervised release.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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
3