UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5174
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHILOH RANA BENNETT, a/k/a Regina Dianne Bennett,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:08-cr-00206-HMH-2)
Submitted: May 25, 2012 Decided: June 7, 2012
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. David Calhoun
Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shiloh Rana Bennett appeals the twenty-four-month
sentence imposed upon revocation of her term of supervised
release. Bennett’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the
district court committed any procedural error rendering the
sentence plainly unreasonable. Bennett was advised of her right
to file a pro se supplemental brief, but she did not file one.
We affirm.
We will not disturb a sentence imposed after
revocation of supervised release that is within the prescribed
statutory range and is not plainly unreasonable. United States
v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437-39 (4th Cir. 2006). In making this
determination, “we follow generally the procedural and
substantive considerations” used in reviewing original
sentences. Id. at 438.
A sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district
court has considered the policy statements contained in Chapter
Seven of the Guidelines and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006) factors, id. at 440, and has adequately explained the
sentence chosen, though it need not explain the sentence in as
much detail as when imposing the original sentence. United
States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). A
2
sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court
states a proper basis for its imposition of a sentence up to the
statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. If, based on this
review, the appeals court decides that the sentence is not
unreasonable, it should affirm. Id. at 439.
In the initial inquiry, this Court takes a more
deferential posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise
of discretion than it does applying the reasonableness review to
post-conviction Guidelines sentences. United States v. Moulden,
478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). Only if the Court finds the
sentence unreasonable must the Court decide whether it is
“plainly” so. Id. at 657.
Although counsel questions whether there is any
procedural error rendering Bennett’s sentence plainly
unreasonable, he identifies no such error. The district court
properly calculated the policy statement range and, citing
Bennett’s recidivism, sentenced her to twenty-four months’
imprisonment, the top of the policy statement range and the
statutory maximum. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2006); U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4(a) & (b)(3)(A), p.s.
(2007). We conclude that the district court committed no
procedural error.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
3
appeal. We therefore affirm. This court requires that counsel
inform his client, in writing, of her right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the
client 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 of the motion was served
on his client. 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