UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4482

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ROBERT EARL LOWRY,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Elizabeth City. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (2:02-cr-00013-F-1)

Submitted: March 16, 2017 Decided: March 21, 2017

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Assistant Federal Public 

Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States 

Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. 

Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Earl Lowry appeals the district court’s judgment order revoking his 

supervised release and sentencing him to 10 months in prison. On appeal, Lowry 

contends that his sentence is plainly substantively unreasonable because his supervised 

release violations were relatively minor, he has taken steps to address his substance abuse 

problem, and he is committed to maintaining employment. Finding no reversible error, 

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), and 

thus, in examining a revocation sentence, we strike “a more deferential appellate posture 

concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than reasonableness review for 

guidelines sentences,” United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). “We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within 

the statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.” Webb, 738 F.3d at 640 (internal 

quotation marks omitted). In conducting reasonableness review in the supervised release 

revocation context, “we follow generally the procedural and substantive considerations” 

used in reviewing original sentences. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th 

Cir. 2006). If we find a sentence to be unreasonable, we must then decide “whether it is 

plainly so.” Webb, 738 F.3d at 640 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, Lowry solely challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. A 

revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court “sufficiently state[s] a 

proper basis” for concluding the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the 
3

statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. Because Lowry’s sentence is within the 

policy statement range, it is presumed reasonable. United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 

370, 373 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 494 (2015).

We conclude that Lowry has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness 

accorded to his sentence. The district court aptly observed that Lowry had demonstrated 

“a cavalier attitude towards supervision” in the past, and thus, a sentence of 

imprisonment at the upper end of the policy statement range was warranted. 

Undoubtedly, the district court’s statements at the sentencing hearing reflect that it 

considered Lowry’s repeated disregard for the conditions of his supervision, even after 

the court displayed leniency by imposing a curfew when Lowry tested positive for 

cocaine about six months into his term of supervised release. See Crudup, 461 F.3d at 

440 (considering district court’s past leniency in substantive reasonableness analysis). 

Lowry took advantage of the district court’s mercy by violating three more conditions of 

his supervision and again using drugs in the six months that followed. Ultimately, the 

district court reasonably determined that a 10-month sentence was necessary to deter 

Lowry’s conduct. See Webb, 738 F.3d at 642 (recognizing that deterrence is appropriate 

factor for court to consider in imposing revocation sentence). Furthermore, we decline 

Lowry’s invitation to reweigh the sentencing factors considered by the district court. See 

United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that “district

courts have extremely broad discretion when determining the weight to be given each of 

the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors”).
4

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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