United States v. Ronald Cook, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4790

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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