UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4725
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAUNDA SHENAL MCADOO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:10-cr-00238-RJC-3)
Submitted: May 31, 2016 Decided: July 7, 2016
Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Edward Yeager, Jr., Cornelius, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shaunda Shenal McAdoo appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking her supervised release and sentencing her to six months
of imprisonment and two years of supervised release thereafter.
On appeal, McAdoo contends that the district court clearly erred
by finding that she committed three Grade C violations of the
terms of her supervised release and that her six-month term of
imprisonment was plainly unreasonable. We affirm.
To revoke supervised release, a district court need only
find a violation of a condition of supervised release by a
preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2012);
United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992).
This standard is met when the court “believe[s] that the
existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”
United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 631 (4th Cir. 2010)
(internal quotation marks omitted). We review a district
court’s ultimate decision to revoke supervised release for an
abuse of discretion, reviewing the court’s factual findings
underlying a revocation for clear error, and find none. See
United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015).
Here, McAdoo admitted her three Grade C violations at her
revocation hearing.
Regarding McAdoo’s sentence, a district court has broad
discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of
2
supervised release. United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640
(4th Cir. 2013). We will affirm a 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, and our review of the record reveals that McAdoo’s
sentence is both within the statutory maximum and the policy
statement range (of three to nine months) for her Grade C
violations, and that she fails to rebut the presumption that the
sentence was reasonable.
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