UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4755
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TERRENCE ANTOINE MCARTHUR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
Chief District Judge. (3:11-cr-00055-1)
Submitted: March 10, 2015 Decided: March 18, 2015
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Davenport, LAMBERT LAW OFFICE, Ironton, Ohio, for
Appellant. Richard Gregory McVey, Assistant United States
Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terrence Antoine McArthur appeals his sentence imposed by
the district court upon revocation of his supervised release.
McArthur admitted the alleged violations, and the district court
sentenced him at the high end of his Chapter Seven policy
statement range to 18 months in prison followed by 18 months of
supervised release. McArthur’s attorney has filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are
no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning the propriety
of his sentence. McArthur was informed of his right to file a
pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.
“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a
sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” United States
v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). We will affirm the
sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and not plainly
unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40
(4th Cir. 2006). Only if we conclude that the sentence is
unreasonable must we decide whether it is plainly so. United
States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 657 (4th Cir. 2007). We
presume that a sentence within the Chapter Seven policy
statement range is reasonable. Webb, 738 F.3d at 642.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that McArthur’s
sentence is both within the statutory maximum and the policy
statement range, and he fails to rebut the presumption that it
2
is reasonable. On appeal, he argues that he should be granted
relief from the sentence because he was not provided a community
confinement center placement when he was first released from
prison. However, the district court adequately explained why a
prison sentence at the high end of the policy statement range
was appropriate in this case, and the court considered his
argument by ordering as a special condition of supervised
release that he reside in a community confinement center for the
first six months. McArthur also argues that the court’s oral
pronouncement at sentencing differs from the written judgment.
In such a case, the oral pronouncement controls. See United
States v. Osborne, 345 F.3d 281, 283 n.1 (4th Cir. 2003).
However, having reviewed the record, we find no conflict between
the oral pronouncement and written judgment in this case.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform his or her client, in writing, of
his or her 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
3
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