USCA4 Appeal: 21-4517 Doc: 32 Filed: 11/04/2022 Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-4517
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MATTHEW JAMES BLACKSTONE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Abingdon. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (1:12-cr-00022-JPJ-14)
Submitted: October 31, 2022 Decided: November 4, 2022
Before AGEE, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Juval O. Scott, Federal Public Defender, John T. Stanford, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Abingdon,
Virginia, for Appellant. Christopher R. Kavanaugh, United States Attorney, Jennifer R.
Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4517 Doc: 32 Filed: 11/04/2022 Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Matthew James Blackstone appeals the district court’s imposition of a 30-month
term of imprisonment following the revocation of his term of supervised release. On
appeal, Blackstone argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the
district court did not adequately explain why it rejected his nonfrivolous mitigating
arguments. For the following reasons, we affirm.
“A district court has broad, though not unlimited, discretion in fashioning a sentence
upon revocation of a defendant’s term of supervised release.” United States v. Slappy, 872
F.3d 202, 206 (4th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, “we will affirm a revocation sentence if it is
within the statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.” Id. at 207 (internal
quotation marks omitted). To determine whether a revocation sentence is plainly
unreasonable, “we first must determine whether the sentence is procedurally or
substantively unreasonable.” Id. In doing so, we apply the same general considerations
used in evaluating original criminal sentences, “with some necessary modifications to take
into account the unique nature of supervised release revocation sentences.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted). Only if we conclude that a revocation sentence is procedurally
or substantively unreasonable will we consider whether the sentence “is plainly so.” Id. at
208 (internal quotation marks omitted).
“A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court adequately
explains the chosen sentence after considering the Sentencing Guidelines’ nonbinding
Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id. at
207 (footnote omitted); see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (listing § 3553(a) factors relevant to
2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4517 Doc: 32 Filed: 11/04/2022 Pg: 3 of 4
revocation sentences). The sentencing court “need not be as detailed or specific when
imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a post-conviction sentence,”
but “it still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed.” Slappy, 872
F.3d at 208 (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, a revocation sentence “need not
always be accompanied by a fulsome explanation for [the court’s] acceptance or rejection
of the parties’ arguments in favor of a particular sentence because, in many circumstances,
a court’s acknowledgment of its consideration of the arguments will suffice.” United States
v. Patterson, 957 F.3d 426, 438 (4th Cir. 2020) (emphasis omitted). A court’s summary
rejection of nonfrivolous sentencing arguments is more likely to survive appellate scrutiny
if the case is simple or the sentence is within the policy statement range. Id. at 438-39.
“[A] revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the court sufficiently states a proper
basis for its conclusion that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed.” Slappy,
872 F.3d at 207 (cleaned up).
Blackstone argues that the district court should have provided a more detailed
response to his nonfrivolous mitigation arguments. However, the district court was
required only to “explain why [it was rejecting Blackstone’s arguments] in a detailed-
enough manner that this Court can meaningfully consider the procedural reasonableness of
the revocation sentence imposed.” Slappy, 872 F.3d at 208. Because the district court did
so, we find that Blackstone’s sentence is procedurally reasonable. ∗
∗
We decline to consider Blackstone’s argument that the district court erroneously
considered the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) in imposing sentence because the issue
(Continued)
3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4517 Doc: 32 Filed: 11/04/2022 Pg: 4 of 4
Accordingly, we affirm Blackstone’s revocation sentence. 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
was raised for the first time in his reply brief. See Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l LLC, 856
F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017).
4