UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4417

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ELIJAH GRANT, a/k/a Box,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., District Judge. (3:14-cr-00017-RJC-16)

Submitted: December 9, 2016 Decided: December 16, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, SHEDD, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Amy K. Raffaldt, MACE FIRM, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for 

Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Elijah Grant was charged with violating various conditions 

of his supervised release. At a hearing at which Grant admitted 

committing the violations, the district court revoked release 

and sentenced Grant to 12 months in prison. Grant appeals. His 

attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the 

sentence is reasonable but concluding that there are no 

meritorious issues for appeal. Grant was advised of his right 

to file a pro se brief but has not filed such a brief. We 

affirm.

We will uphold “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) (quoting 

United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006)). 

The record establishes that Grant was sentenced within the 

statutory maximum term of three years, see 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(e)(3) (2012). The remaining question is whether the 

sentence is plainly unreasonable.

“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). Only if we find a sentence to be unreasonable will we 
3

consider whether it is “plainly” so. United States v. Crudup, 

461 F.3d at 440. 

A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the 

district court considered the Chapter Seven policy statement

range and the applicable statutory sentencing factors. Id. A 

revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the court 

stated a proper basis for concluding that the defendant should 

receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. Id. 

“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 sentence imposed.’” United States v. 

Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (quoting United States v. Moulden, 478 

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

We conclude that Grant’s sentence is procedurally and 

substantively reasonable. The district court stated that it had 

considered relevant § 3553(a) factors, and the court was aware 

of Grant’s policy statement range of 6-12 months. Further, the 

court provided a sufficiently individualized assessment in 

fashioning the revocation sentence. In this regard, the court 

was especially troubled by Grant’s persistent drug use. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in 

this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We 

therefore affirm. This court requires that counsel inform 
4

Grant, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of 

the United States for further review. If Grant 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 Grant. 

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