UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4417
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ELIJAH GRANT, a/k/a Box,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:14-cr-00017-RJC-16)
Submitted: December 9, 2016 Decided: December 16, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, SHEDD, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Amy K. Raffaldt, MACE FIRM, Myrtle Beach, South 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Elijah Grant was charged with violating various conditions
of his supervised release. At a hearing at which Grant admitted
committing the violations, the district court revoked release
and sentenced Grant to 12 months in prison. Grant appeals. His
attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the
sentence is reasonable but concluding that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal. Grant was advised of his right
to file a pro se brief but has not filed such a brief. We
affirm.
We will uphold “a revocation sentence if it is within the
statutory maximum and is not ‘plainly unreasonable.’” United
States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006)).
The record establishes that Grant was sentenced within the
statutory maximum term of three years, see 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(3) (2012). The remaining question is whether the
sentence is plainly unreasonable.
“When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly
unreasonable, we must first determine whether it is unreasonable
at all.” United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir.
2010). Only if we find a sentence to be unreasonable will we
2
consider whether it is “plainly” so. United States v. Crudup,
461 F.3d at 440.
A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the
district court considered the Chapter Seven policy statement
range and the applicable statutory sentencing factors. Id. A
revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the court
stated a proper basis for concluding that the defendant should
receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. Id.
“A 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.’” United States v.
Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (quoting United States v. Moulden, 478
F.3d 652, 657 (4th Cir 2007)).
We conclude that Grant’s sentence is procedurally and
substantively reasonable. The district court stated that it had
considered relevant § 3553(a) factors, and the court was aware
of Grant’s policy statement range of 6-12 months. Further, the
court provided a sufficiently individualized assessment in
fashioning the revocation sentence. In this regard, the court
was especially troubled by Grant’s persistent drug use.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm. This court requires that counsel inform
3
Grant, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of
the United States for further review. If Grant 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 Grant.
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