UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4005
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MAUNWELL JAAVAR ERVIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:00-cr-00489-HMH-2)
Submitted: August 21, 2014 Decided: August 28, 2014
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United
States Attorney, E. Jean Howard, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Maunwell Jaavar Ervin appeals the district court’s
judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a thirty-
four-month term of imprisonment. Following our review pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we directed
supplemental briefing on whether the district court adequately
explained Ervin’s sentence. For the reasons that follow, we
affirm the revocation of Ervin’s supervised release, vacate his
sentence, and remand for resentencing.
Generally, we will affirm a sentence imposed after
revocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed
statutory range and not plainly unreasonable. United States v.
Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). In determining
whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we first
consider whether the sentence is procedurally and substantively
unreasonable. Id. at 438. To be procedurally reasonable, the
district court must, among other things, adequately explain the
sentence and provide an individualized assessment based on the
facts. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
Although “[a] court need not be as detailed or
specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when
imposing a post-conviction sentence, . . . it still must provide
a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed.” United
States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal
2
quotation marks omitted). An explanation of sentence upon
revocation of supervised release “should . . . provide . . .
assurance that the sentencing court considered the § 3553(a)
factors with regard to the particular defendant before him, and
also considered any potentially meritorious arguments raised by
the parties with regard to sentencing.” United States v.
Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 657 (4th Cir. 2007).
Here, the Government concedes that the district court
neglected to address Ervin’s request that his revocation
sentence run concurrently with his undischarged state term of
imprisonment. Nor did the district court offer any other
explanation for Ervin’s sentence. Accordingly, although we
affirm the revocation of supervised release, we vacate Ervin’s
sentence and remand for resentencing. * See Thompson, 595 F.3d at
547-48.
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 IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED
*
By our disposition, we indicate no view as to the
appropriate sentence to be imposed on remand.
3