UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-5016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

LAKEEVIAN JONES, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

Chief District Judge. (5:08-cr-00193-FL-1) 

Submitted: July 8, 2009 Decided: July 29, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and MICHAEL, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne 

M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Lakeevian Jones pled guilty to several drug and 

firearm offenses and was sentenced to time served, with a fouryear period of supervised release. While on supervised release, 

Jones tested positive for marijuana on multiple occasions, 

failed to attend drug counseling, and dropped out of a courtordered halfway-house program. The district court revoked 

Jones’ supervised release and imposed a twenty-eight-month 

sentence. Jones appeals, claiming the district court imposed an 

unreasonably long sentence. Having reviewed the record, we 

affirm. 

 This court will affirm a sentence imposed after 

revocation of supervised release if it is within the applicable 

statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. See United 

States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). We 

first assess the sentence for unreasonableness, “follow[ing] 

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.” Id. at 438-39. If 

we conclude that a sentence is not unreasonable, we will affirm 

the sentence. Id. at 439. Only if a sentence is found 

procedurally or substantively unreasonable will this court 

“decide whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable.” Id.
3 

 A supervised release revocation sentence is not 

procedurally unreasonable if the district court considered the 

U. S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Chapter Seven advisory policy 

statement range and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors that 

it is permitted to consider in a supervised release revocation 

case. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2006); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. 

Such a sentence is not substantively unreasonable if the 

district court stated a proper basis for concluding the 

defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the 

statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. A sentence is 

plainly unreasonable if it is clearly or obviously unreasonable. 

Id. at 439. 

 In this case, the district court reviewed the 

applicable statutory maximum of sixty months and the Guidelines 

Chapter Seven policy range of three to nine months. The 

district court noted Jones’ multiple violations, which came 

after an earlier sanction for failing to comply with the terms 

of his release. The district court also noted that Jones’ 

original sentence was the product of a downward departure. 

Finally, the district court noted Jones’ need for drug 

treatment, which the court believed could best be achieved in 

prison. Having reviewed the record, we find that the district 

court’s sentence was not plainly unreasonable. 
4 

 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment 

revoking Jones’ supervised release and imposing a twenty-eightmonth prison term. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED