UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4303

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KEITH BUTLER, a/k/a Harlem,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:14-cr-00048-FL-1)

Submitted: November 19, 2014 Decided: November 24, 2014

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer

P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Keith Butler appeals the district court’s judgment 

revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to fifty-one 

months’ imprisonment. Butler contends that his sentence is both 

procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the court 

considered an impermissible sentencing factor. Because Butler 

did not raise this issue in the district court, review is for 

plain error. United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 

2013). Under plain error review, Butler must show that (1) the 

court erred, (2) the error was clear and obvious, and (3) the 

error affected his substantial rights. Id. at 640-41. Even if 

Butler meets his burden, we retain discretion to recognize the 

error and will deny relief unless the error “seriously affect[s] 

the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial 

proceedings.” Id. at 641 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Finding no error, we affirm.

“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a 

sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” Webb, 738 F.3d 

at 640. We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of 

supervised release if it is within the applicable statutory 

maximum and not “plainly unreasonable.” United States v. 

Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). In determining 

whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, this 

court first assesses the sentence for unreasonableness, 
3

following the procedural and substantive considerations that are 

at issue during its review of original sentences. Id. at 438-

39. In this initial inquiry, we take a more “deferential 

appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of 

discretion than reasonableness review for guidelines sentences.” 

United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) 

(internal quotation marks omitted).

In exercising its discretion, the “district court is 

guided by the Chapter Seven policy statements in the federal 

Guidelines manual, as well as the statutory factors applicable 

to revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e).” 

Webb, 738 F.3d at 641. “Chapter Seven instructs that, in 

fashioning a revocation 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.’” Id.

(quoting U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ch. 7, pt. A(3)(b) 

(2012)). In determining the length of a sentence imposed upon 

revocation of supervised release, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012) 

requires a sentencing court to consider all but two of the 

factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). One of the excluded 

factors is the need for the sentence “to reflect the seriousness 

of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide 
4

just punishment for the offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A); 

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439.

A supervised release revocation sentence is 

procedurally reasonable if the district court properly 

calculates the Chapter Seven advisory policy statement range and 

explains the sentence adequately after considering the policy 

statements and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors it is permitted 

to consider in a supervised release revocation case. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(e) (2013); United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 

(4th Cir. 2010); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. A revocation sentence 

is substantively reasonable if the district court states a

proper basis for concluding that the defendant should receive 

the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 

F.3d at 440. Only if a sentence is found procedurally or 

substantively unreasonable will we “then decide whether the 

sentence is plainly unreasonable.” Id. at 439. A sentence is 

plainly unreasonable if it is clearly or obviously unreasonable. 

Id.

We have recognized that “[a]lthough § 3583(e) 

enumerates the factors a district court should consider when 

formulating a revocation sentence, it does not expressly 

prohibit a court from referencing other relevant factors omitted 

from the statute.” Webb, 738 F.3d at 641. As long as a court 

does not base a revocation sentence predominately on the 
5

§ 3553(a)(2)(A) factors, “mere reference to such considerations 

does not render a revocation sentence procedurally unreasonable 

when those factors are relevant to, and considered in 

conjunction with, the enumerated § 3553(a) factors.” Id. at 

642.

We conclude that the district court imposed the fiftyone month sentence predominately on permitted factors and 

referenced “respect for the law” in conjunction with the need to 

sanction Butler for his breach of trust and to deter him and 

others from violating conditions of release in the future. See

Webb, 738 F.3d at 642 (references to omitted sentencing factors 

were related to references to permissible sentencing factors). 

Accordingly, we find no procedural or substantive error in the 

sentence. 

We therefore affirm the district court’s 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