UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4790
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RONALD HAMILTON COOK, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:07-cr-00101-HEH-1)
Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 19, 2012
Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Valencia
Roberts, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt,
Appellate Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Angela
Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Hamilton Cook, Jr., appeals the twenty-four-
month sentence imposed following the district court’s revocation
of his term of supervised release. Cook’s counsel filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting
that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning
whether Cook’s sentence was reasonable. Cook has not filed a
pro se brief, though he was informed of his right to do so.
Finding no error, we affirm.
The district court has broad discretion to impose a
sentence upon revoking a defendant’s supervised release. United
States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). Thus, we
assume “a deferential appellate posture concerning issues of
fact and the exercise of [that] discretion,” United States v.
Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation
marks omitted), and will affirm unless the sentence is “plainly
unreasonable” in light of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006) factors. Id. at 437.
Our first step in reviewing a sentence imposed upon a
revocation of supervised release is to “decide whether the
sentence is unreasonable.” Id. at 438. A sentence is
procedurally reasonable if the district court has considered the
policy statements contained in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing
Guidelines and the applicable § 3553(a) factors, id. at 439, and
2
has adequately explained the sentence chosen, though it need not
explain the sentence in as much detail as when imposing the
original sentence. Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547. A sentence is
substantively reasonable if the district court states a proper
basis for its imposition of a sentence up to the statutory
maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. Our review of the record on
appeal leads us to conclude that the revocation sentence was
procedurally and substantively reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Cook, in writing, of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Cook requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may
move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
Cook. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3