UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4713
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOE D. MILLS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (4:08-cr-00012-F-1)
Submitted: February 7, 2012 Decided: February 23, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joe D. Mills, Jr. appeals the district court’s
judgment imposing a thirty-six month sentence upon revocation of
his probation. Mills does not dispute that he violated the
terms of his probation, but instead challenges the procedural
reasonableness of his sentence. We affirm.
We review sentences imposed upon revocation of
probation to determine whether they are plainly unreasonable.
United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 655 (4th Cir. 2007).
The first step in this review analyzes whether the sentence
imposed is unreasonable at all, taking “a more deferential
appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of
discretion than reasonableness review for guidelines sentences.”
Id. at 656 (internal quotation marks omitted). Although a
sentencing court must consider the non-binding policy statements
in Chapter 7 of the Guidelines as well as the applicable 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, it “retains broad discretion to
revoke a defendant’s probation and impose a term of imprisonment
up to the statutory maximum.” Id. at 656-57. A sentencing
court must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence
imposed, but this statement need not be as specific as one
addressing a departure from a “traditional” Guidelines range.
Id. at 657. If the revocation sentence is unreasonable, we must
then determine whether it is plainly so. Id.
2
We find that the district court adequately explained
its reasons for imposing the thirty-six month revocation
sentence. In rejecting Mills’ request for a shorter sentence
followed by a term of supervised release conditioned on in-
patient substance abuse treatment, the district court recounted
Mills’ pattern of supervision violations and relapse into
substance abuse following treatment. Thus, the district court
deemed Mills no longer suitable for community supervision. We
find the district court’s explanation sufficient in this case.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3