UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4182
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN T. SIMPSON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:15-cr-00810-PMD-1)
Submitted: September 30, 2016 Decided: October 4, 2016
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alicia Vachira Penn, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Dean Hodge Secor,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John T. Simpson, Jr., appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his supervised release and imposing a sentence of 11
months of imprisonment. Appellate counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning
the reasonableness of Simpson’s sentence. We affirm.
A court may revoke supervised release if it “finds by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a
condition of supervised release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2012).
We review a district court’s revocation decision for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 494 (2015). Because Simpson
admitted the violations of which the district court found him
guilty, we conclude that the court’s revocation decision was not
an abuse of discretion.
“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) (citing United States v.
Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010)). We “will affirm a
revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is
not plainly unreasonable.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted)
(quoting United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir.
2006)). “When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly
2
unreasonable, we must first determine whether it is unreasonable
at all.” Thompson, 595 F.3d at 546 (citing authorities). A
revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district
court adequately explains the sentence after considering the
policy statements in Chapter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines
and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors. See
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); Thompson, 595 F.3d at 546-47. The district
court’s explanation of Simpson’s sentence, which emphasized
Simpson’s repeated noncompliance with the terms of his supervised
release, easily satisfies this standard.
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 Simpson, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Simpson 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 Simpson.
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