USCA4 Appeal: 21-4545 Doc: 16 Filed: 04/18/2022 Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-4545
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LEARON CHATMON LITTLE,
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. (1:12-cr-00021-NCT-1)
Submitted: April 14, 2022 Decided: April 18, 2022
Before DIAZ and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Mark A. Jones, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, PA, Winston-Salem, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Michael A. DeFranco, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 21-4545 Doc: 16 Filed: 04/18/2022 Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Learon Chatmon Little appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised
release and sentencing him to 16 months’ imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues
for appeal but questioning whether the district court erred in finding that Little violated the
conditions of his supervised release and whether Little’s sentence is reasonable. Although
notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Little has not done so. We affirm.
We review the district court’s revocation decision for abuse of discretion and its
factual findings for clear error. United States v. Dennison, 925 F.3d 185, 190 (4th Cir.
2019). A district court need only find a supervised release violation by a preponderance of
the evidence. Id. at 191 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)). Here, Little admitted four
violations of his supervised release, including a Grade B violation for use of cocaine.
Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Little’s supervised
release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.3(a)(1), p.s.
(2018) (“Upon a finding of a Grade . . . B violation, the court shall revoke probation or
supervised release.”).
Next, counsel questions whether Little’s sentence is reasonable. “We affirm a
revocation sentence so long as it is within the prescribed statutory range and is not plainly
unreasonable.” United States v. Coston, 964 F.3d 289, 296 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal
quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1252 (2021). Little’s sentence does not
exceed the applicable statutory maximum. Accordingly, the remaining question is whether
the sentence is plainly unreasonable. When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is
2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4545 Doc: 16 Filed: 04/18/2022 Pg: 3 of 4
plainly unreasonable, we first “determine whether the sentence is unreasonable at all.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted). “In making this determination, we follow generally the
procedural and substantive considerations that we employ in our review of original
sentences, with some necessary modifications to take into account the unique nature of
supervised release revocation sentences.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 207
(4th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up). Thus, “we first must determine whether the sentence is
procedurally or substantively unreasonable.” Id.
A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court adequately
explains the sentence after considering the Chapter Seven policy statements and the
applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Id.; see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). “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).
We conclude that Little’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable.
The district court correctly identified the policy statement range, considered the relevant
statutory factors, acknowledged Little’s mitigation arguments, and gave sufficiently
detailed reasons for selecting its within-range sentence. In accordance with Anders, we
have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4545 Doc: 16 Filed: 04/18/2022 Pg: 4 of 4
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel
inform Little, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Little 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 Little.
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