UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4679
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ERIC SCOTT BARKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:04-cr-00086-IMK-2)
Submitted: April 6, 2012 Decided: April 25, 2012
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
L. Richard Walker, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld,
II, United States Attorney, Shawn Angus Morgan, Assistant United
States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Scott Barker appeals the district court’s
judgment revoking supervised release and sentencing him to
eighteen months’ imprisonment and thirty months’ supervised
release. Counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there were no meritorious issues for
appeal but raising for the court’s consideration the
reasonableness of the sentence. Barker was notified of the
opportunity to file a pro se brief, but declined to do so. We
affirm.
This court will affirm a sentence imposed after
revocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed
statutory range and not plainly unreasonable. United States v.
Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). The court first
considers whether the sentence imposed is procedurally or
substantively unreasonable. Id. at 438. In this initial
inquiry, the court takes a more deferential posture concerning
issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than
reasonableness review for guidelines sentences. United
States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). Only if
this court finds the sentence procedurally or substantively
unreasonable, must the court decide whether it is “plainly” so.
Id. at 657.
2
While a district court must consider Chapter Seven’s
policy statements and the statutory provisions applicable to
revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e) (2006),
the court need not robotically tick through every subsection,
and it has broad discretion to revoke the previous sentence and
impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. Id.
at 656-57. Moreover, while a court must provide a statement of
reasons for the sentence imposed, the court “need not be as
detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it
must be when imposing a post-conviction sentence.” United
States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).
We conclude that Barker’s sentence was both
procedurally and substantively reasonable. We note that there
was no error with the calculation of the Guidelines sentence.
We further note that the district court considered the parties
arguments for an appropriate sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
and the transcript and find no error with Barker’s sentence nor
any meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Barker’s
sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Barker, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Barker requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for
3
leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must
state that a copy thereof was served on Barker. 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 the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4