UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4232

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ARTHUR LOGAN, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:20-cr-00124-MOC-DSC-1)

Submitted: October 20, 2023 Decided: December 29, 2023

Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: John G. Baker, Federal Public Defender, Jared P. Martin, Assistant Federal 

Public Defender, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., 

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4232 Doc: 30 Filed: 12/29/2023 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Arthur Logan, Jr., appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his term of 

supervised release and imposing a 10-month term of imprisonment and 12 months of 

additional supervision. On appeal, Logan’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal 

but questioning the adequacy of the court’s sentencing explanation and the substantive 

reasonableness of Logan’s sentence. Although notified of his right to do so, Logan has not 

filed a pro se supplemental brief. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

“A district court has broad . . . discretion in fashioning a sentence upon revocation 

of a defendant’s term of supervised release.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 206 

(4th Cir. 2017). “We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum 

and is not plainly unreasonable.” Id. at 207 (internal quotation marks omitted). “To 

consider whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we first must determine 

whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable.” Id. Even if a 

revocation sentence is unreasonable, we will reverse only if it is “plainly so.” Id. at 208 

(internal quotation marks omitted).

A district court imposes a procedurally reasonable sentence by “considering the 

Sentencing Guidelines’ nonbinding Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,” “adequately explain[ing] the chosen sentence,” and 

“meaningfully respond[ing] to the parties’ nonfrivolous arguments” for a different 

sentence. Id. at 207 (footnotes omitted). And a court complies with substantive 

reasonableness requirements by “sufficiently stat[ing] a proper basis for its conclusion that 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4232 Doc: 30 Filed: 12/29/2023 Pg: 2 of 4
3

the defendant should receive the sentence imposed.” Id. (internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

We conclude that the district court’s sentencing explanation, “though brief, was 

legally sufficient.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). While the court did 

not expressly discuss the § 3553(a) factors, the court repeatedly emphasized the need for 

Logan—who violated his supervision by physically assaulting his ex-girlfriend—to 

participate in an anger management program, thereby demonstrating that the court had 

appropriately considered the pertinent factors. See United States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513, 

521 (4th Cir. 2017). Moreover, the Government and Logan jointly requested the sentence 

the court imposed, meaning that there were no sentencing disputes for the court to address. 

Finally, we discern nothing in the record to rebut the presumption of substantive 

reasonableness accorded to Logan’s within-policy-statement-range sentence. United 

States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015). 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have 

found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform Logan, in writing, of the right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Logan requests that a petition be 

filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move 

in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that 

a copy thereof was served on Logan.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4232 Doc: 30 Filed: 12/29/2023 Pg: 3 of 4
4

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

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4232 Doc: 30 Filed: 12/29/2023 Pg: 4 of 4