UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4477
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAWN OWEN GILLESPIE, II,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00187-1)
Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 19, 2016
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christian M. Capece, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Research & Writing Specialist, David R. Bungard, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellant. Carol A. Casto, United States Attorney, John L.
File, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shawn Owen Gillespie, II, appeals the district court’s
judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to
24 months’ imprisonment, the statutory maximum sentence.
Gillespie argues that his sentence is plainly unreasonable
because it is longer than necessary and does not adequately
reflect his need for drug addiction treatment. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a
sentence upon revocation of supervised release. We will affirm
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) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“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). A sentence is substantively reasonable if the district
court states a proper basis for concluding the defendant should
receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum.
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 440 (4th Cir. 2006).
Applying the above standards to the facts of this case, we
conclude that the district court’s stated reasons for imposing a
statutory maximum sentence are not unreasonable, much less
plainly so. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
2
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