UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4955
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEVEN REED,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:09-cr-00087-RJC-1)
Submitted: April 18, 2012 Decided: May 10, 2012
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henderson Hill, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA,
INC., Ann L. Hester, Assistant Federal Defender, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States
Attorney, Melissa L. Rikard, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steven Reed appeals the sentence of twenty-four
months’ imprisonment imposed upon revocation of supervised
release. Reed argues that the sentence is procedurally plainly
unreasonable because the district court failed to address his
non-frivolous arguments for a within-Guidelines sentence. The
Government responds that the sentence is not plainly
unreasonable. Finding no error, we affirm.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (West 2000 & Supp. 2011),
the Government sought to revoke Reed’s term of supervised
release based on four violations of its conditions. The
district court determined that the violations of supervision
were Grade C violations. Because Reed’s criminal history placed
him in Category VI, the applicable Guidelines range was eight to
fourteen months’ imprisonment. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 7B1.4, p.s. (2010).
Reed requested a within-Guidelines sentence, noting
that he had completed more than two years of his three-year term
of supervised release, that he had done well under supervision,
that he maintained employment for a period of time, that he
participated in drug treatment classes and was a leader in those
classes, and that during his imprisonment pending revocation, he
had completed another drug treatment program. The district
2
court revoked supervised release and imposed a variant sentence
of twenty-four months’ imprisonment. *
In reviewing a sentence imposed after revocation of
supervised release, this court “takes a more deferential
appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of
discretion than reasonableness review for [G]uidelines
sentences.” United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th
Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). We will affirm a
sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is
not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d
544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010). The first step in this review
requires a determination of whether the sentence is
unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th
Cir. 2006). A supervised release revocation sentence is
procedurally reasonable if the district court considered Chapter
Seven’s advisory policy statement range and the 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2011) factors applicable to
supervised release revocation. See Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547;
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). “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
*
The statutory maximum term was twenty-four months’
imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (2006); 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(3)
(2006); 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006).
3
statement of reasons for the sentence imposed.” Thompson, 595
F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks omitted).
If the sentence is unreasonable, the inquiry proceeds
to the second step of the analysis — determining whether the
sentence is plainly unreasonable. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-39.
For a sentence to be plainly unreasonable, “it must run afoul of
clearly settled law.” Thompson, 595 F.3d at 548.
Here, the district court explicitly considered Reed’s
violations of the law, his drug use, his violations of the terms
of supervision, his difficulty complying with supervision, his
criminal history, the need to protect the public, and the need
for deterrence. The district court permissibly concluded that a
Guidelines sentence would be inadequate and thus imposed a
sentence above the Guidelines range. A review of the record
confirms that the district court sufficiently explained the
selected sentence and addressed Reed’s arguments for a lesser
sentence.
We therefore conclude that the sentence is not
procedurally unreasonable, much less plainly so, and we affirm
the judgment of the district court. 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