UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-4665
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES OSCAR LITTLE, a/k/a Timothy Eugene Little,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:04-cr-00339-JKB-1)
Submitted: May 24, 2018 Decided: May 29, 2018
Before TRAXLER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, Joanna Silver, OFFICE OF
THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Stephen
M. Schenning, Acting United States Attorney, Martin J. Clarke, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
In 2007, James Oscar Little pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm with an
obliterated serial number, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(k) (2012), and the district court
sentenced Little to 100 months of imprisonment, followed by 3 years of supervised
release. Following his release from incarceration, Little was convicted in state court of
second degree assault. Based on this new conviction, the district court revoked Little’s
supervised release and sentenced him to 21 months of imprisonment, followed by 15
months of supervised release. Little appeals, arguing that the sentence is plainly
unreasonable. Finding no error, we affirm.
Little argues on appeal that the sentence is procedurally and substantively
unreasonable. We review a sentence imposed as a result of a supervised release violation
to determine whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. United States v. Padgett, 788
F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015). The first step in this analysis is a determination of whether
the sentence is unreasonable; in making this determination, we follow the procedural and
substantive considerations employed in reviewing original sentences. United States v.
Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). Although a district court must consider the
policy statements in Chapter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines along with the statutory
factors, “the court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke its previous sentence and
impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum.” Id. at 439 (internal
quotation marks omitted). If a sentence imposed after a revocation is not unreasonable,
we will not proceed to the second prong of the analysis—whether the sentence is plainly
unreasonable. Id. at 438-39.
2
A district court must adequately explain a revocation sentence, “whether the
district court imposes an above, below, or within-Guidelines sentence.” United States v.
Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). “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.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, in
conducting the individualized assessment, the district court must consider the defendant’s
nonfrivolous arguments for a sentence outside of the Guidelines range. United States v.
Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2017). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and
conclude that the district court sufficiently explained the chosen sentence, rejecting
Little’s arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence, and the sentence is not unreasonable.
It follows, therefore, that the sentence is not is plainly unreasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3