UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4679

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ERIC SCOTT BARKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, 

District Judge. (1:04-cr-00086-IMK-2)

Submitted: April 6, 2012 Decided: April 25, 2012

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

L. Richard Walker, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, 

Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, 

II, United States Attorney, Shawn Angus Morgan, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eric Scott Barker appeals the district court’s 

judgment revoking supervised release and sentencing him to 

eighteen months’ imprisonment and thirty months’ supervised 

release. Counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there were no meritorious issues for 

appeal but raising for the court’s consideration the 

reasonableness of the sentence. Barker was notified of the 

opportunity to file a pro se brief, but declined to do so. We 

affirm. 

This court will affirm a sentence imposed after 

revocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed 

statutory range and not plainly unreasonable. United States v. 

Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). The court first 

considers whether the sentence imposed is procedurally or 

substantively unreasonable. Id. at 438. In this initial 

inquiry, the court takes a more deferential 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). Only if 

this court finds the sentence procedurally or substantively 

unreasonable, must the court decide whether it is “plainly” so. 

Id. at 657.
3

While a district court must consider Chapter Seven’s 

policy statements and the statutory provisions applicable to 

revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e) (2006), 

the court need not robotically tick through every subsection, 

and it has broad discretion to revoke the previous sentence and 

impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. Id.

at 656-57. Moreover, while a court must provide a statement of 

reasons for the sentence imposed, the court “need not be as 

detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it 

must be when imposing a post-conviction sentence.” United 

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

We conclude that Barker’s sentence was both 

procedurally and substantively reasonable. We note that there 

was no error with the calculation of the Guidelines sentence. 

We further note that the district court considered the parties 

arguments for an appropriate sentence. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

and the transcript and find no error with Barker’s sentence nor 

any meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Barker’s 

sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Barker, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If Barker requests that a 

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition 

would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for 
4

leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must 

state that a copy thereof was served on Barker. 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