UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MANUEL L. PAGE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, Senior
District Judge. (5:04-cr-00155-1)
Submitted: October 11, 2011 Decided: October 27, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, Christian M. Capece, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. John Lanier
File, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia;
Monica Kaminski Schwartz, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Following the revocation of his supervised release,
Manuel Page was sentenced to sixty days of incarceration,
followed by six months of community confinement, followed by
twenty-four months’ supervised release. Page did not object to
this sentence. On appeal, Page’s counsel 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
Page’s sentence was plainly unreasonable. Page was notified of
his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed
a brief. The Government has declined to file a responsive
brief. We affirm.
In reviewing a sentence imposed upon revocation of
supervised release, this court “takes a more ‘deferential
appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of
discretion’ than reasonableness review for [G]uidelines
sentences.” United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th
Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439
(4th Cir. 2006)). We will affirm a sentence imposed after
revocation of supervised release if it is not plainly
unreasonable. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th
Cir. 2010). The first step in this review requires a
determination of whether the sentence is unreasonable. Crudup,
461 F.3d at 438. Only if the sentence is procedurally or
2
substantively unreasonable does the inquiry proceed to the
second step of the analysis to determine whether the sentence is
plainly unreasonable. Id. at 438-39.
A supervised release revocation sentence is
procedurally reasonable if the district court considered the
advisory policy statement range based upon Chapter Seven of the
Sentencing Guidelines and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors
applicable to supervised release revocation. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e) (2006); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-40. A 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.
“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).
Page argues that his sentence is greater than
necessary to accomplish the goals of supervised release. We
disagree. The district court adequately explained the sentence
imposed, and we do not find that the sentence was any greater
than necessary.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
3
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. This
court requires that counsel inform Page, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Page 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 Page.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4