UNPUBLISHED

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William S. Trivette, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, 

Eleanor T. Morales, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 has 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 supplemental 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 release. We will affirm 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) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “[W]e first consider 

whether the sentence imposed is procedurally or substantively unreasonable.” 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 should 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); see 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-enough 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 plainly 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 consecutive 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 effectively escape meaningful punishment for violating his supervised release 

conditions”). When explaining the sentence, the court acknowledged Scott’s drug 
4

addiction but emphasized his failure to complete a drug treatment program and his 

continued association 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 counsel 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 argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED