**UN PUBLISHED** 
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 E astern 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 un publis hed per curiam opinion
.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Valencia Roberts, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Carolin e S. Platt, Appellate Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Angela Mastandrea

- Miller, Assistant United States Att orney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ronald Hamilton Cook, Jr., appeals the twenty

- four

month sentence imposed following the district court’s revocation of his term of sup ervised 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, tho ugh 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

unre asonable” 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, and3 has adequately explained the sentence chosen, though it need no t 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.
I n accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritori ous 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 f iled, 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 f acts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED