UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-4375
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SALATHIEL D. HARRISON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 19-4389
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SALATHIEL D. HARRISON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (6:14-cr-00132-TMC-3; 6:18-cr-00991-
TMC-1)
Submitted: December 30, 2019 Decided: January 14, 2020
Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Barlow Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL
PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Jacob Watkins,
Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Salathiel D. Harrison appeals the 30-month sentence imposed upon revocation of
his supervised release and probation. Harrison’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no potentially meritorious
grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court properly revoked Harrison’s
supervised release and imposed reasonable sentences. We affirm.
We review a district court’s revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion
and its underlying factual findings for clear error. United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370,
373 (4th Cir. 2015). To revoke a supervised release term, the district court need only find
by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of his supervised
release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2018). Harrison’s supervised release and probation
conditions included that he “not commit another federal, state, or local crime,” and
Harrison admitted that he committed a new offense for which he had already pled guilty
and been convicted. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking
Harrison’s supervised release and probation.
With respect to the sentences, “[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 if it is within the statutory
maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In
reviewing a revocation sentence, “we first must determine whether the sentence is
procedurally or substantively reasonable,” evaluating the same general considerations
employed in our review of original sentences. United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 207
3
(4th Cir. 2017). If we find a sentence unreasonable, then we proceed to determine whether
it is “plainly” so. Webb, 738 F.3d at 640.
“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) [(2018)] factors.”
Slappy, 872 F.3d at 207 (footnote omitted). The “sentence is 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).
Based on our review of the record, we conclude that Harrison’s sentences are
procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court properly calculated the
applicable policy statement ranges, considered the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,
and explained how they supported the chosen sentences. The court’s explanation included
a fact-specific discussion of the nature and circumstances of the offense, Harrison’s history
and characteristics, and the appropriate balance between deterrence and rehabilitation. See
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Based on these factors, the court sentenced Harrison within the
respective policy statement ranges, at or below the maximum sentences allowed by statute.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in these appeals and
have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s
revocation judgments. This court requires that counsel inform Harrison, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Harrison
requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
4
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 Harrison. 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
5