UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4005

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MAUNWELL JAAVAR ERVIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (8:00-cr-00489-HMH-2)

Submitted: August 21, 2014 Decided: August 28, 2014

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished 

per curiam opinion.

David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United 

States Attorney, E. Jean Howard, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Maunwell Jaavar Ervin appeals the district court’s 

judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a thirtyfour-month term of imprisonment. Following our review pursuant 

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we directed 

supplemental briefing on whether the district court adequately 

explained Ervin’s sentence. For the reasons that follow, we 

affirm the revocation of Ervin’s supervised release, vacate his 

sentence, and remand for resentencing.

Generally, we will affirm a sentence imposed after 

revocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed 

statutory range and not plainly unreasonable. United States v. 

Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). In determining 

whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we first

consider whether the sentence is procedurally and substantively 

unreasonable. Id. at 438. To be procedurally reasonable, the 

district court must, among other things, adequately explain the 

sentence and provide an individualized assessment based on the 

facts. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 

Although “[a] court need not be as detailed or 

specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when 

imposing a post-conviction sentence, . . . it still must provide 

a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed.” United 

States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal 
3

quotation marks omitted). An explanation of sentence upon 

revocation of supervised release “should . . . provide . . . 

assurance that the sentencing court considered the § 3553(a) 

factors with regard to the particular defendant before him, and 

also considered any potentially meritorious arguments raised by 

the parties with regard to sentencing.” United States v. 

Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 657 (4th Cir. 2007).

Here, the Government concedes that the district court 

neglected to address Ervin’s request that his revocation 

sentence run concurrently with his undischarged state term of 

imprisonment. Nor did the district court offer any other 

explanation for Ervin’s sentence. Accordingly, although we 

affirm the revocation of supervised release, we vacate Ervin’s

sentence and remand for resentencing.*

 See Thompson, 595 F.3d at 

547-48.

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 IN PART,

VACATED IN PART,

AND REMANDED

 * By our disposition, we indicate no view as to the 

appropriate sentence to be imposed on remand.