UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 4114

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DANIEL JAY SCOTT, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. Thomas D. Schroeder , Chief District Judge. ( 1:11

- cr - 00151

- TDS

- 1 )

Submitted : August 20, 2020 Decided: August 25, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN , and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. William S. Trivette, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, Eleanor T. Morales, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNIT ED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Daniel Jay Scott, Jr., appeals the 24

- month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. Counsel h as filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Scott’s revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable. Scott was advised of his right to file a suppleme ntal brief, but he has not done so. The Government has declined to file a response brief. We affirm. “A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised releas e. We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is wi thin the statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Webb , 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “ [W]e first consider whether the sentence imposed is procedurally or substantively unre asonable.” Id. Only when the sentence is unreasonable will we determine whether the sentence “is plainly so.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court adequately explains the chosen sentence after considering the Sentencing Guidelines’ nonbinding Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Slappy , 872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2017) (footnote omitted) ; see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (listing relevant factors). “[A] revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the court sufficiently states a proper basis for its conclusion that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed.” Slappy , 872 F.3d at 207 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). “A sentence within the policy statement range is presumed reasonable.”3 United States v. Padgett , 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). In fashioning an appropriate sentence, “the court s hould sanction primarily the defendant’s breach of trust, while taking into account, to a limited degree, the seriousness of the underlying violation and the criminal history of the violator.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ch. 7, pt. A(3)(b) (2018) ; s ee Webb , 738 F.3d at 641. “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 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). The court “must address the parties’ nonfrivolous arguments in favor of a particular sentence, and if the court rejects those arguments, it must explain why in a detailed

- en ough manner that [we] can meaningfully consider the procedural reasonableness of the revocation sentence.” Slappy , 872 F.3d at 208.
We conclude that Scott’s sentence , which was at the top of the accurately calculated policy statement range , is not plain ly unreasonable

. The district court considered Scott’s request for the revocation sentence to run concurrently with his state sentence but ultimately concluded that his significant breach of trust and the applicable § 3553(a) factors warranted a consecuti ve sentence. See USSG § 7B1.3(f), p.s. (recommending consecutive sentences); cf. United States v. Coombs , 857 F.3d 439, 451 (1st Cir. 2017) (explaining that consecutive sentences are appropriate and that , “[w]ere the rule otherwise, a defendant would effe ctively escape meaningful punishment for violating his supervised release conditions”). When explaining the sentence, the court acknowledged Scott’s drug4 addiction but emphasized his failure to complete a drug treatment program and his continued associati on with people who use drugs and possess firearms. In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that coun sel inform Scott , in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Scott 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 Scott

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argumen t would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED