UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4790

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RONALD HAMILTON COOK, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:07-cr-00101-HEH-1)

Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 19, 2012

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Valencia 

Roberts, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt, 

Appellate Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Angela 

Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Hamilton Cook, Jr., appeals the twenty-fourmonth sentence imposed following the district court’s revocation 

of his term of supervised release. Cook’s counsel filed a brief 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting 

that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning 

whether Cook’s sentence was reasonable. Cook has not filed a 

pro se brief, though he was informed of his right to do so. 

Finding no error, we affirm. 

The district court has broad discretion to impose a 

sentence upon revoking a defendant’s supervised release. United 

States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). Thus, we 

assume “a deferential appellate posture concerning issues of 

fact and the exercise of [that] discretion,” United States v. 

Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation 

marks omitted), and will affirm unless the sentence is “plainly 

unreasonable” in light of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

(2006) factors. Id. at 437. 

Our first step in reviewing a sentence imposed upon a 

revocation of supervised release is to “decide whether the 

sentence is unreasonable.” Id. at 438. A sentence is 

procedurally reasonable if the district court has considered the 

policy statements contained in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing 

Guidelines and the applicable § 3553(a) factors, id. at 439, and 
3

has adequately explained the sentence chosen, though it need not 

explain the sentence in as much detail as when imposing the 

original sentence. Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547. A sentence is 

substantively reasonable if the district court states a proper 

basis for its imposition of a sentence up to the statutory 

maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. Our review of the record on 

appeal leads us to conclude that the revocation sentence was 

procedurally and substantively reasonable. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the 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 Cook, in writing, of his right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Cook requests that a petition be filed, but counsel 

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may 

move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. 

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on 

Cook. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED