UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4995

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CARLTON ANTONIO EDWARDS, Nini,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:03-cr-00316-REP-1)

Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 5, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Paul Gregorio, INNSBROOK LAW GROUP, P.C., Glen Allen, 

Virginia, for Appellant. Jamie L. Mickelson, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Carlton Antonio Edwards pled guilty to violating the 

terms of his supervised release. The district court sentenced 

him to a term of forty-six months’ imprisonment. Appellate 

counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues 

for appeal but questions whether Edwards’ sentence is plainly 

unreasonable. Edwards filed a pro se supplemental brief further 

questioning his sentence. The Government declined to file a 

brief. 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, 

this court will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of 

supervised release if it is within the governing statutory range 

and not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 

433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). In reviewing a revocation 

sentence, this court “follow[s] generally the procedural and 

substantive considerations” used in reviewing original 

sentences. Id. In this initial inquiry, this court takes a 

more deferential posture concerning issues of fact and the 

exercise of discretion than it does applying the reasonableness 

review to post-conviction Guidelines sentences. United States 

v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). Only if this 
3

court finds the sentence unreasonable must the Court decide 

whether it is “plainly” so. Id. at 657.

A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if 

the district court has considered the policy statements 

contained in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines and the 

applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. Crudup, 461 F.3d 

at 440. The district court must adequately explain the sentence 

chosen, though it need not explain in as much detail as when 

imposing the original sentence. Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547. 

Further, we may consider the district court’s statements 

throughout the entire sentencing proceeding, and find the 

court’s reasoning is “clear from the context.” Id. 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. 

We have carefully reviewed the sentencing transcript 

in this case and conclude that the district court adequately 

explained its reasons for the sentence it chose, including 

Edwards’ history and characteristics, disrespect for the law, 

refusal to be deterred from criminal conduct, and the need to 

protect the public from Edwards’ further crimes. We further 

detect no error in the district court’s decision to order 

Edwards’ revocation sentence to be served consecutively to his 
4

other term of imprisonment. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 

Manual § 7B1.3(f) (2011).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We 

therefore affirm the district court’s order revoking supervised 

release and imposing sentence. This court requires that counsel 

inform Edwards, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme 

Court of the United States for further review. If Edwards

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 Edwards.

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