UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4003
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO JERMAINE CAMPBELL, a/k/a Terrell Quinton Campbell,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:05-cr-01191-PMD-1)
Submitted: July 31, 2012 Decided: August 6, 2012
Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cameron J. Blazer, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Nettles,
United States Attorney, M. Rhett DeHart, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Jermaine Campbell appeals the district court’s
judgment sentencing him to twenty-four months’ imprisonment for
violating the terms and conditions of his supervised release.
On appeal, Campbell argues that his revocation sentence is
plainly unreasonable because the district court erred in finding
that he committed a Grade B violation rather than a Grade C
violation. We affirm.
This court will affirm a sentence imposed after
revocation of supervised release if the sentence is within the
applicable statutory maximum and is not “plainly unreasonable.”
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006).
In determining whether a revocation sentence is unreasonable,
“we follow generally the procedural and substantive
considerations” used in reviewing original sentences. Id. at
438. Only if we find the sentence procedurally or substantively
unreasonable must we decide whether it is plainly so. United
States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). Campbell
asserts only procedural error on appeal.
A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if
the district court considered the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual (“USSG”) Chapter 7 (2011) advisory policy statements and
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. Crudup, 461 F.3d at
440. Only if a sentence is found unreasonable will this court
2
“then decide whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable.” Id.
at 439. A sentence is “plainly” unreasonable if it is clearly
or obviously unreasonable. Id.
Campbell argues that the district court committed
procedural error in calculating his Guidelines range because it
incorrectly found that he had committed a Grade B violation
instead of a Grade C violation. “[T]he grade of violation is to
be based on the defendant’s actual conduct.” USSG § 7B1.1,
cmt. n.1; see United States v. Jolibois, 294 F.3d 1110, 1114
(9th Cir. 2002) (violation of terms of supervised release is
determined based on defendant’s conduct rather than an
indictment or conviction). At the revocation hearing, Campbell
admitted that he had assaulted and injured his father, but
argued that the conduct should be considered a Grade C, rather
than a Grade B, violation. The district court found that
Campbell’s conduct constituted aggravated assault, which under
South Carolina law is punishable by a maximum of twenty years’
imprisonment. S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-600(B)(2) (2010). We
conclude that Campbell failed to demonstrate that the court
erred in finding that he committed a Grade B violation.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4