UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5213
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY LOVE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (7:06-cr-00028-D-1)
Submitted: May 30, 2012 Decided: June 5, 2012
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P.
May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Love pled guilty to one count of being a felon
in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) (2006). Love was sentenced to sixty-three months in
prison and three years of supervised release. His term of
supervised release began in December 2010.
In May 2011, Love’s probation officer petitioned the
court to revoke Love’s supervised release. The petition listed
three violations: (1) use of a controlled substance; (2) failure
to participate as directed in a treatment program; and
(3) failure to submit required urine samples. An amended
petition cited a fourth violation: (4) Love absconded
supervision.
At his revocation hearing, Love admitted all the
violations. Love’s Grade C violations combined with his level
VI criminal history category produced a recommended
imprisonmnent range of eight to fourteen months. U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual, § 7B1.4, p.s. (2011). The
district court sentenced Love to the statutory maximum sentence
of twenty-four months. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2006). Love
timely appealed. We affirm.
On appeal, Love challenges his sentence as
procedurally unreasonable, arguing that the district court’s
2
reasons for imposing the sentence were unreasonable and its
explanation of the sentence insufficient.
This court will affirm a sentence imposed after
revocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed
statutory range and is not plainly unreasonable. United
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). We
first consider whether the sentence is procedurally or
substantively unreasonable, taking a more deferential posture
concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than we
do when conducting reasonableness review for Guidelines
sentences. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th
Cir. 2007). Only if we find the sentence procedurally or
substantively unreasonable must we decide whether it is plainly
so. Id. at 657.
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 district 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
3
sentence.” United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th
Cir. 2010). Our review of the record convinces us that the
district court adequately explained Love’s sentence and
sufficiently considered, and rejected, Love’s arguments for a
lower sentence.
Therefore, 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