UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4335
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JONATHAN C. LONG,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,
Chief District Judge. (4:10-cr-00067-RBS-TEM-1)
Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 20, 2016
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant,
Appellate Attorney, Suzanne V. Katchmar, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Amy
Elizabeth Cross, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan C. Long appeals the district court’s order
revoking supervised release and imposing 18 months’ imprisonment
and 42 months’ supervised release. Long’s 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 the reasonableness of the sentence and whether the
district court erred by determining that Long had a Grade B
violation. Long filed a pro se supplemental brief claiming that
the sentence was unreasonable. The Government did not file a
brief. 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 a revocation sentence that “is within the prescribed
statutory range and is not plainly unreasonable.” United
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 440 (4th Cir. 2006). We first
consider whether the sentence imposed is procedurally and
substantively unreasonable, applying the same general
considerations employed in our review of original criminal
sentences. Id. at 438. Only if we find the sentence
unreasonable will we consider whether it is “plainly” so. Id.
at 439.
2
A supervised release revocation sentence is procedurally
reasonable if the district court considered the policy
statements contained in Chapter Seven of the Sentencing
Guidelines and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors applicable
to revocation sentences. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-39; see also
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012).
The district court must also provide a statement of reasons
for the sentence imposed. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d
544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). “Regardless of whether the district
court imposes an above, below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it
must place on the record an ‘individualized assessment’ based on
the particular facts of the case before it.” United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007)). “A court need not be as
detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it
must be when imposing a post-conviction sentence, but it still
must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed.”
Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We find no error with the district court’s determination
that Long had at least one Grade B violation. See United
States v. Wynn, 786 F.3d 339, 343 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 136
S. Ct. 276 (2015). We further conclude that the sentence was
both procedurally and substantively reasonable.
3
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 order. This
court requires that counsel inform Long, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Long 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 Long. 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