UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4676

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JANSEN V. CARR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:19-cr-00017-GMG-RWT-3)

Submitted: August 22, 2024 Decided: August 26, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Aaron D. Moss, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE 

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. William 

Ihlenfeld, United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, Kimberley D. Crockett, 

Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4676 Doc: 21 Filed: 08/26/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

In 2019, Jansen V. Carr pleaded guilty to distribution of cocaine base, in violation 

of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). The district court sentenced Carr to five years’ probation. In 2023, 

the court revoked Carr’s probation and sentenced his to time-served, followed by three 

years’ supervised release. Shortly thereafter, Carr violated the terms of his supervised 

release. The district court revoked Carr’s supervised release and sentenced him to 24 

months’ imprisonment. Carr now appeals, arguing that the upward-variant sentence is 

plainly unreasonable because the district court did not adequately explain its chosen 

sentence or address his nonfrivolous mitigating arguments. We affirm. 

“We affirm a revocation sentence so long as it is within the prescribed statutory 

range and is not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Coston, 964 F.3d 289, 296 (4th 

Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). When reviewing whether a revocation 

sentence is plainly unreasonable, we first “determine whether the sentence is unreasonable 

at all.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “In making this determination, we follow 

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.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 

207 (4th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up). “A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the 

district court adequately explains the chosen sentence after considering the Sentencing 

Guidelines’ nonbinding Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors.” Coston, 964 F.3d at 297 (internal quotation marks omitted); see 18 

U.S.C. § 3583(e).

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4676 Doc: 21 Filed: 08/26/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

We conclude Carr’s sentence is not plainly unreasonable. The district court 

considered the relevant statutory factors and thoroughly explained its rationale for 

imposing the above-policy statement range sentence, emphasizing that the statutory 

maximum sentence was necessary to account for Carr’s repeated noncompliance with the 

conditions of his release.

We therefore affirm the revocation judgment. 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: 23-4676 Doc: 21 Filed: 08/26/2024 Pg: 3 of 3