UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4427
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MANDRELL EDWARD DAVIS, a/k/a Dro,
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. (1:14-cr-00433-JAB-6)
Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 19, 2016
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael E. Archenbronn, Winston Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mandrell Edward Davis appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 12 months’
imprisonment. Davis’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether
Davis’ sentence was substantively unreasonable. Davis was
advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he
has not filed one. We affirm.
“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a
sentence upon revocation of supervised release. We will affirm
a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and
is not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d
638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly
unreasonable, we must first determine whether it is unreasonable
at all.” United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir.
2010). A sentence is substantively reasonable if the district
court states a proper basis for concluding the defendant should
receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum.
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 440 (4th Cir. 2006). A
sentence within the applicable policy statement range under
Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines is presumed reasonable.
2
Webb, 738 F.3d at 642; see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 7B1.4 (2014).
Applying these standards, we conclude that Davis’ within-
range sentence is not unreasonable, much less plainly so.
Further, 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 Davis, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Davis 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 Davis.
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