UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4364
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RANDY BAKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:01-cr-00045-MOC-1; 3:01-cr-00145-MOC-1)
Submitted: November 27, 2012 Decided: November 30, 2012
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henderson Hill, Director, Ann L. Hester, Assistant Federal
Defender, Douglas E. Roberts, Staff Attorney, FEDERAL DEFENDERS
OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Randy Baker appeals the district court’s order
revoking his two concurrent terms of supervised release and
imposing concurrent sentences of twenty-two months’ and ten
months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
certifying that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal but
questioning whether the district court imposed a plainly
unreasonable sentence. Baker was notified of his right to file
a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. The Government
has declined to file a response brief. We affirm.
A district court possesses broad discretion to impose
a sentence revoking a defendant’s supervised release term.
United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).
We will affirm a sentence imposed upon revocation if it is
within the statutory maximum and not “plainly unreasonable.”
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006).
In making this determination, we first consider whether the
sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Id. at
438. A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the
district court considered the Chapter Seven policy statements
and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. See 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2006); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-40. The
district court need not explain its reasons for imposing a
2
revocation sentence in as much detail as in imposing an original
sentence, but “it still must provide a statement of reasons for
the sentence it imposed.” Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal
quotation marks omitted). A revocation sentence is
substantively reasonable if the district court stated a proper
basis for concluding that the defendant should receive the
sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d
at 440.
Here, the terms of imprisonment imposed by the court
do not exceed the statutory maximums applicable to each offense.
See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559(a), 3583(e)(3) (West 2000 & Supp.
2012). The district court considered the advisory range,
§ 3553(a) factors, and arguments posed by both parties. While
the court did not “robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every
subsection,” it was not required to do so. United States v.
Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation
marks omitted). The court adequately explained its rationale
and grounded the sentence imposed in proper bases, including
Baker’s repeated pattern of supervised release violations, the
incarceration he had already served due to prior revocations,
and its conclusion that Baker had proven unsupervisable. Thus,
our review of the record reveals that Baker’s sentence is not
unreasonable, let alone plainly so.
3
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for review.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This
court requires that counsel inform Baker, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Baker 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 thereof
was served on Baker.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4