UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4165

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SAMUEL WALLACE GOSS, III,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:14-cr-00473-CCE-1)

Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 5, 2024

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Thomas K. Maher, AMOS TYNDALL PLLC, Carrboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Kyle D. Pousson, Assistant United 

States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4165 Doc: 20 Filed: 02/05/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM: 

Samuel Wallace Goss, III, appeals the 24-month sentence imposed following the 

revocation of his supervised release. On appeal, Goss argues that the sentence is plainly 

unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately consider his serious drug 

addiction and imposed a term greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals 

articulated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Finding no error, we affirm. 

“A sentencing court has broad discretion to impose a revocation sentence up to the 

statutory maximum.” United States v. Coston, 964 F.3d 289, 296 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal 

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

maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Patterson, 957 F.3d 426, 436 

(4th Cir. 2020). When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, 

we first “determine whether the sentence is unreasonable at all.” Coston, 964 F.3d at 296 

(internal quotation marks omitted). “In making this determination, ‘we follow generally 

the procedural and substantive considerations that we employ in our review of original 

sentences, . . . with some necessary modifications to take into account the unique nature of 

supervised release revocation sentences.’” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th 

Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438-39 (4th Cir. 2006)).

“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,” Coston, 

964 F.3d at 297 (internal quotation marks omitted), and the explanation indicates “that the 

court considered any potentially meritorious arguments raised by the parties,” Patterson,

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4165 Doc: 20 Filed: 02/05/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

957 F.3d at 436-37 (internal quotation marks omitted). “A revocation sentence is 

substantively reasonable if, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the court states an 

appropriate basis for concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed.” 

Coston, 964 F.3d at 297 (internal quotation marks omitted).

The record reflects that the district court adequately explained the sentence and 

stated an appropriate basis for concluding that Goss should receive the sentence it imposed. 

Contrary to Goss’ arguments on appeal, the court considered Goss’ mitigating argument 

regarding his history of drug addiction, but it ultimately found that the maximum available 

sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment, to run consecutively to Goss’ related sentence for 

possession of methamphetamine, was warranted in light of the § 3553(a) factors. 

Specifically, the court emphasized that Goss attempted to evade drug testing, resisted drug 

abuse treatment, and committed new crimes while on supervised release. Therefore, in 

light of the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that Goss’ sentence is not plainly 

unreasonable. 

Accordingly, we affirm the revocation 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

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4165 Doc: 20 Filed: 02/05/2024 Pg: 3 of 3