UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4573

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

JONATHAN C. HAMLETTE, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. 

(1:01-cr-00596-CCB-1) 

Submitted: February 6, 2009 Decided: February 18, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Sapna Mirchandani, OFFICE 

OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland, for 

Appellant. Philip S. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Baltimore, Maryland.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Jonathan Hamlette appeals his sentence of twenty-one 

months’ imprisonment and twelve months’ supervised release 

imposed after the district court revoked his previous term of 

supervised release. In Hamlette’s notice of appeal, he contends 

that any sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised 

release was limited to two years. Hamlette’s attorney has filed 

a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), alleging both that the district court failed to 

sufficiently articulate its reasons for imposing a twenty-one 

month term of imprisonment and that the sentence imposed is 

unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately 

consider alternatives to imprisonment. Counsel states, however, 

that he has found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We affirm.*

 Because Hamlette did not object to the district 

court’s failure to articulate the reasons for its sentence, we 

review for plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 

732 (1993); United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547 (4th Cir. 

2005). In United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 

2005), we held that “revocation sentences should be reviewed to 

determine whether they are ‘plainly unreasonable’ with regard to 

 *

 Although Hamlette was informed of his right to file a pro 

se supplemental brief, he has not done so. 

2 
those 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors applicable to 

supervised release revocation sentences.” We recognized that 

review of a sentence imposed on revocation of supervised release 

involves both procedural and substantive components. Id. at 

438. A sentencing court must provide a sufficient explanation 

of the sentence to allow effective review of its reasonableness 

on appeal. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 657 (4th 

Cir. 2007) (probation revocation). The court need not 

“robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every subsection,” or 

“explicitly discuss every § 3353(a) factor on the record.” 

United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). 

 Our review of the record in this case leads us to 

conclude that the district court’s reasons supporting its 

sentencing decision are sufficiently apparent from the record. 

We conclude that the sentence is neither procedurally nor 

substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Finley, 531 

F.3d 288, 297 (4th Cir. 2008). We find that the district court 

complied with all relevant statutory provisions in imposing his 

sentence. 

 In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

Accordingly, we affirm Hamlette’s conviction and sentence. This 

court requires that counsel inform Hamlette, in writing, of the 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

3 
4 

further review. If Hamlette 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 Hamlette. 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