**UN PUBLISHED** 
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 un published 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Unpublished opinions are not binding pre cedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Elijah Grant was charged with violating various conditions of his supervised release.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 un reasonable. “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 we3 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 consider ed the Chapter Seven policy statement
range and the applicable statutory sen tencing factors. Id. A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the court
state d 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 sent ence 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 inform4 Grant, in writing, of the right to petition t he 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 mo tion 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