Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04847/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04847-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stewart Keith Polk
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4847

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

STEWART KEITH POLK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief Judge. (1:08-cr-00221-TDS-2)

Submitted: June 2, 2020 Decided: June 15, 2020

Before WYNN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George E. Crump, III, Rockingham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Craig Matthew 

Principe, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4847 Doc: 20 Filed: 06/15/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Stewart Keith Polk appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised 

release and sentencing Polk to 14 months’ imprisonment, followed by an additional 46-

month term of supervised release. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal 

but questioning whether the district court imposed a plainly unreasonable sentence. 

Although advised of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, Polk has not done so. We 

affirm.

“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of 

supervised release.” United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). We will 

affirm a revocation sentence that “is within the prescribed statutory range and is not plainly 

unreasonable.” United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 440 (4th Cir. 2006). “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 revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable where, as here, the district court 

adequately explains the sentence after considering the Chapter Seven policy statements and 

the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2018) factors. United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 

207 (4th Cir. 2017); see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2018). A revocation sentence is substantively 

reasonable if the court states a proper basis for concluding that the defendant should receive 

the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. “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 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4847 Doc: 20 Filed: 06/15/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

sentence imposed.” Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks omitted). Only 

if a sentence is either procedurally or substantively unreasonable do we consider whether 

the sentence is plainly unreasonable. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th 

Cir. 2007). We conclude that Polk’s 14-month term of imprisonment and his 46-month 

term of supervised release are within both the statutory maximum and the policy statement 

range and are not unreasonable, plainly or otherwise.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and 

found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the revocation judgment. This 

court requires that counsel inform Polk, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme 

Court of the United States for further review. If Polk 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 Polk. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4847 Doc: 20 Filed: 06/15/2020 Pg: 3 of 3