UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-4707
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CALVIS MONTRELL ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:06-cr-01322-TLW-5)
Submitted: April 19, 2018 Decided: June 6, 2018
Before KING, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL
PUBLIC DEFENDER, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Calvis Montrell Robinson appeals from the district court’s order revoking his
supervised release and imposing a 30-month term of imprisonment. 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 Robinson’s sentence is plainly
unreasonable. Although informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,
Robinson has not done so.
We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is
within the prescribed statutory range and is not plainly unreasonable. United States v.
Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438-40 (4th Cir. 2006). While a district court must consider the
Chapter Seven policy statements, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ch. 7, pt. B (2016),
and the statutory requirements and factors applicable to revocation sentences under 18
U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e) (2012), the district court ultimately has broad discretion to
revoke supervised release and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory
maximum. United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640-41 (4th Cir. 2013).
A supervised release revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if a district
court considered the Chapter Seven advisory policy statements and the § 3553(a) factors
it is permitted to consider in a revocation case. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); Crudup, 461
F.3d at 439-40. A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court
stated a proper basis for concluding the defendant should receive the sentence imposed,
up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. Only if a sentence is found
2
procedurally or substantively unreasonable will this court “then decide whether the
sentence is plainly unreasonable.” Id. at 439 (emphasis omitted).
We discern no error in the district court’s decision to impose a 30-month term of
imprisonment. The sentence is within the statutory maximum of 60 months and the
advisory policy statement range based on Robinson’s violations and criminal history.
USSG § 7B1.4(a), p.s. The court adequately stated permissible reasons for the sentence
and that it had considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors.
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 revocation
judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Robinson, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Robinson 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 Robinson. 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