USCA4 Appeal: 21-4248 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/14/2022 Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-4248
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARCUS PARKS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:19-cr-00226-NCT-1)
Submitted: December 20, 2021 Decided: January 14, 2022
Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael E. Archenbronn, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Tanner
Lawrence Kroeger, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4248 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/14/2022 Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Parks, Jr., appeals from the revocation of his supervised release and the
imposition of an 18-month sentence, to be followed by 18 months of supervised release.
His counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that
there were no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the district court
adequately considered Parks’s mitigating arguments prior to imposing sentence. The
Government declined to file a response brief. Parks was notified of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief but has not done so. After a careful review of the record, we affirm.
“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of
supervised release.” United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). “We will
affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly
unreasonable.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal
quotation marks omitted). In determining whether a revocation sentence is plainly
unreasonable, “we first must determine whether the sentence is procedurally or
substantively unreasonable.” Id. In doing so, we are guided by the same procedural and
substantive considerations that guide our review of original sentences, but we take a more
deferential appellate posture. United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015).
“A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court adequately
explains the chosen sentence after considering the Sentencing Guidelines’ nonbinding
Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United
States v. Coston, 964 F.3d 289, 297 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted),
cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1252 (2021); see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (listing sentencing factors
2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4248 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/14/2022 Pg: 3 of 4
applicable to revocation proceedings). “A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable
if, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the court states an appropriate basis for
concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed.” Coston, 964 F.3d at
297 (internal quotation marks omitted).
“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.” United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th
Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). An explanation is adequate if it permits this
court to determine “that the sentencing court considered the applicable sentencing factors
with regard to the particular defendant before it and also considered any potentially
meritorious arguments raised by the parties with regard to sentencing.” United States v.
Gibbs, 897 F.3d 199, 204 (4th Cir. 2018) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted).
In Slappy, we held that a district court imposing a revocation sentence “must address
the parties’ nonfrivolous arguments in favor of a particular sentence, and if the court rejects
those arguments, it must explain why in a detailed-enough manner that this [c]ourt can
meaningfully consider the procedural reasonableness of the revocation sentence imposed.”
872 F.3d at 208; see United States v. Ross, 912 F.3d 740, 744 (4th Cir. 2019) (requiring
original sentencing court to “address or consider all non-frivolous reasons presented for
imposing a different sentence”). “[W]here a court entirely fails to mention a party’s
nonfrivolous arguments in favor of a particular sentence, or where the court fails to provide
at least some reason why those arguments are unpersuasive, even the relaxed requirements
for revocation sentences are not satisfied.” Slappy, 872 F.3d at 209.
3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4248 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/14/2022 Pg: 4 of 4
Here, Parks admitted the violations of which he was accused. The district court then
provided a clear and detailed explanation for rejecting Parks’s request for a supervised
release sentence. The court explicitly addressed his mitigating arguments and, in light of
them, imposed a sentence below the Guidelines range. Further, the court repeatedly noted
that Parks had failed on supervision, even with a good support system. We find that the
explanation was sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review and that the sentence was
based on appropriate sentencing factors. Thus, the sentence was both substantively and
procedurally reasonable.
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.
This court requires that counsel inform Parks, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Parks 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 Parks. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4