UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4674

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHARLES CURTIS GALLOWAY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior

District Judge. (5:97-cr-00067-BR-1)

Submitted: June 28, 2010 Decided: August 18, 2010

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Charles Curtis Galloway appeals the district court’s 

imposition of a fifty-seven month sentence following revocation 

of his supervised release. On appeal, Galloway contends that 

the district court imposed a plainly unreasonable sentence 

because it failed to address his arguments for a lower sentence. 

Finding no reversible error, 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). We will 

affirm unless the sentence is “plainly unreasonable” in light of 

the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. United 

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

Our first step in reviewing a sentence imposed upon a 

revocation of supervised release is to decide whether the 

sentence is unreasonable. Id. at 438. In doing so, we 

generally follow “the procedural and substantive considerations”

employed in reviewing original sentences. Id. “A district 

court commits significant procedural error where it ‘fail[s] to 

adequately explain the chosen sentence.’” Thompson, 595 F.3d at 

547 (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). 

While the district court need not explain the reasons for the 

sentence in as much detail as when imposing the original 

sentence, “it still must provide a statement of reasons for the 
3

sentence imposed.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Additionally, the district court should address the defendant’s 

nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a sentence different from the 

advisory sentencing range. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 

325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). 

In some cases, “a district court’s reasoning for 

imposing a within-range sentence may be clear from context . . . 

including the court’s statements to the defendant throughout the 

sentencing hearing.” Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547. Unless the 

district court completely fails to indicate any reasons for its 

sentence, “[w]e may be hard-pressed to find any explanation for 

within-range, revocation sentences insufficient given the amount 

of deference we afford district courts when imposing these 

sentences.” Id. If we determine that the sentence is not 

unreasonable, we will affirm. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. 

We conclude that Galloway’s revocation sentence is 

reasonable. While the district court’s explanation was brief, 

its rationale is clear – it imposed a sentence at the top of 

Galloway’s Guidelines range because of his history of supervised 

release violations. This rationale also implicitly rejects 

Galloway’s argument for a below-Guidelines sentence. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
4

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED