UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4678
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JERIMI MISHOME SIMS, a/k/a Jerimi Meshon Sims, a/k/a Pac Man,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:01-cr-00005-RLV-24)
Submitted: January 30, 2012 Decided: February 3, 2012
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven H. Jesser, STEVEN H. JESSER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C.,
Skokie, Illinois, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant
United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerimi Mishome Sims appeals the district court’s
judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to
forty-six months’ imprisonment. Sims’ attorney has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but
raising the issue of whether the government proved by a
preponderance of the evidence that Sims was guilty of violating
his supervised release by committing violation (1), the offense
of possession of marijuana with intent to manufacture, sell or
deliver. Counsel also questions whether Sims’ sentence was
reasonable. Sims has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising
these same issues. We affirm.
We review a district court’s judgment revoking
supervised release and imposing a term of imprisonment for abuse
of discretion. United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th
Cir. 1992). To revoke supervised release, a district court need
only find a violation of a condition of supervised release by a
preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2006).
Sims admitted guilt to four of the five charged violations of
supervised release. A hearing was conducted on the charged
violation (1) to which Sims pled not guilty, and our review
discloses that the government proved by a preponderance of the
evidence that Sims violated his supervised release by possessing
2
marijuana with the intent to sell or deliver. Accordingly, we
find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
finding Sims guilty of violation (1) and revoking Sims’
supervised release.
We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of
supervised release if it is within the prescribed statutory
range and not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup,
461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). We first consider whether
the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Id.
at 438. In this initial inquiry, we take a more deferential
posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion
than reasonableness review for guidelines sentences. United
States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). Only if
we find the sentence procedurally or substantively unreasonable
must we decide whether it is “plainly” so. Id. at 657.
While a district court must consider the Chapter Seven
policy statements and the statutory factors applicable to
revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e) (2006),
the court need not robotically tick through every subsection,
and ultimately, the court has broad discretion to revoke the
previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the
statutory maximum. Id. at 656-57. Moreover, while a district
court must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence, the
court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a
3
revocation sentence as when imposing a post-conviction sentence.
United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Sims’
sentence is within the prescribed range and is not plainly
unreasonable. At the revocation hearing, the court properly
considered the guidelines and applicable statutory factors in
imposing its sentence, including Sims’ noncompliance, his very
serious criminal record, Sims’ addiction, his pursuit of
criminal activity, and the protection of the public.
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 district court’s judgment. At
this juncture, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. This court
requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If the client requests that a petition be
filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
frivolous, then counsel may move in this court at that time for
leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must
state that a copy thereof was served on the client. Finally, 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