UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4302
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RANDALL EUGENE HILLIAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:04-cr-00041-JAB-1)
Submitted: January 26, 2016 Decided: February 9, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ames Colby Chamberlin, LAW OFFICES OF AMES C. CHAMBERLIN,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Albert
Jamison Lang, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Randall Eugene Hillian appeals the district court’s
judgment revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing
him to a term of 21 months’ imprisonment. In accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Hillian’s counsel has
filed a brief certifying that there are no meritorious issues
for appeal, but suggesting that the court review the
reasonableness of Hillian’s sentence. Although informed of his
right to file a pro se brief, Hillian has not done so. We
affirm the district court’s judgment.
“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 a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory
maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted). We first review the district court’s
sentence for “significant procedural error.” Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Next, we review the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence, “examin[ing] the totality of the
circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its
discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied
the standards set forth in § 3553(a),” United States v. Gomez-
Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370, 382 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks
2
omitted), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 305 (2014), as applicable to
a revocation of supervised release proceeding, see 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e). When reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a
revocation sentence, an appellate court may apply a presumption
of reasonableness where the imposed term falls within the
Sentencing Guidelines policy statement range. United States v.
Aplicano-Oyuela, 792 F.3d 416, 425 (4th Cir. 2015). Finally,
because Hillian did not object to the imposed term of
imprisonment before the district court, our review is for plain
error. Webb, 738 F.3d at 640-41. Our review of the record
reveals neither a procedural error nor anything overcoming the
applicable presumption of reasonableness that accompanies the
district court’s imposition of a within-Guidelines sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
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 Hillian, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Hillian 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 Hillian.
3
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