UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4658
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STAFFORD CALHOUN BERRY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:07-cr-00353-TLW-1)
Submitted: January 4, 2013 Decided: January 11, 2013
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stafford Calhoun Berry appeals the district court’s
revocation of his term of supervised release and sentence of six
months’ imprisonment after he admitted or failed to contest six
violations of the terms of his release. On appeal, counsel for
Berry filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), asserting that the sentence is not plainly
unreasonable. Berry has not exercised his right to file a pro
se supplemental brief. We affirm.
We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of
supervised release if it is within the statutory range and not
plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433,
439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). We first determine “whether the
sentence is unreasonable.” Id. at 438. A sentence is
procedurally reasonable if the district court considered the
Guidelines range and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors
applicable to supervised release revocation. Id. at 438-40. A
sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court
stated a proper basis for concluding the defendant should
receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. Id.
at 440. We will “tak[e] a more deferential appellate posture
concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than
reasonableness review for . . . sentences [imposed after
conviction].” United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th
2
Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). If the sentence
is procedurally or substantively unreasonable, we then decide
whether it is plainly unreasonable. Id. at 657. A sentence is
plainly unreasonable if “it . . . run[s] afoul of clearly
settled law.” United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 548 (4th
Cir. 2010).
We conclude that Berry’s revocation sentence is not
unreasonable, much less plainly so. The district court
correctly calculated the applicable Guidelines range, considered
the applicable standards, explained its reasons for denying
Berry’s sentencing request, and selected a sentence squarely
within the appropriate range. Moreover, Berry agreed to the
selected sentence in exchange for the Government’s agreement to
not pursue additional violations. We thus conclude that Berry’s
sentence is not unreasonable. We have reviewed the entire
record pursuant to our obligation under Anders, and we discern
no meritorious issue for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. 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
3