UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-4078
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THOMAS BLAKE SILER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:04-cr-00488-TDS-1)
Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 27, 2018
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Blake Siler appeals the district court’s order revoking his supervised
release and imposing a seven-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 generally questioning whether Siler’s sentence is
plainly unreasonable. Although informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,
Siler has not done so. 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). This
court “will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not
plainly unreasonable.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Reasonableness review of
a revocation sentence involves us first determining “whether the sentence imposed is
procedurally or substantively unreasonable.” Id. Only when the sentence is unreasonable
will we determine “whether it is plainly so.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
“A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court adequately
explains the chosen sentence after considering the Sentencing Guidelines’ nonbinding
Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) [(2012)]
factors.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2017). We will uphold a
revocation sentence as substantively reasonable “if the court sufficiently states a proper
basis for its conclusion that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed.” Id.
(alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).
2
Upon review of the record, we conclude the district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing a seven-month term of imprisonment after finding Siler committed
the supervised release violations alleged in the revocation petition. This sentence is
within both the statutory maximum of 60 months and the advisory policy statement range
of 4 to 10 months, which was calculated based on the greatest of the alleged violations—
a Grade B violation—coupled with Siler’s prior assignment to criminal history category
I. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 7B1.4(a), p.s (2004). Further, the court considered
the relevant § 3553(a) factors, defense counsel’s arguments in mitigation, and adequately
stated permissible reasons for the sentence. Finally, Siler does not advance—and our
review of the record did not reveal—any basis for overcoming the presumption of
substantive reasonableness we afford Siler’s within-policy statement range sentence.
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 Siler, in writing, of the right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Siler 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 Siler. 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