UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-5098

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BRODERICK DALE NELSON, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,

District Judge. (3:04-cr-00082-FDW-DSC-1)

Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: July 5, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard L. Brown, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD L. BROWN, JR., 

Monroe, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Broderick Dale Nelson, Jr., appeals the district’s 

court’s imposition of a twenty-four month consecutive sentence 

following revocation of his supervised release. On appeal, 

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

U.S. 738 (1967) asserting that, in his opinion, there are no 

meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the 

district court abused its discretion in revoking Nelson’s 

supervised release, and whether it abused its discretion in 

ordering the sentence to run consecutive to the sentence Nelson 

had already received for the underlying conduct. Counsel 

concludes, however, that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion by revoking Nelson’s term of supervised release as it 

was required to do so pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(2) because 

Nelson possessed a firearm. Counsel also concludes that the 

district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the 

consecutive twenty-four month sentence because it thoroughly 

considered the appropriate 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors in 

deciding to do so. Nelson was informed of his right to file a 

pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. The Government 

declined to file a responsive brief. We affirm. 

We review the district court's decision to revoke a 

defendant's supervised release for an abuse of discretion. 

United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992). In 
3

cases where, as here, a defendant possessed a firearm while 

serving a term of supervised release, revocation is mandatory. 

18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(2). Our review of the record leads us to 

conclude that the district court properly revoked Nelson’s term 

of supervised release, as he admitted to the violation charging 

him with possessing a firearm. 

We next review Nelson’s sentence. We 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). In determining whether a sentence is plainly 

unreasonable, we must first consider whether the sentence 

imposed is unreasonable. Id. at 438. In making this 

determination, this Court follows “the procedural and 

substantive considerations that [it] employ[s] in [its] review 

of original sentences.” Id. at 438. In this inquiry, we take 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 we find the sentence procedurally or 

substantively unreasonable, must we decide whether it is 

“plainly” so. Id. at 657. 

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a), “if a term of imprisonment 

is imposed on a defendant who is already subject to an 
4

undischarged term of imprisonment, the terms may run 

concurrently or consecutively.” United States v. Johnson, 138 

F.3d 115, 118-19 (4th Cir. 1998) (“[W]e hold that the district 

court had the authority to impose consecutive sentences upon 

Johnson when it revoked his supervised release.”). In 

determining whether the terms will run concurrently or 

consecutively, the district court must consider the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors. Our review of the record leads us to 

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

imposing the chosen sentence. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This Court requires that counsel inform Nelson, in writing, of 

the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Nelson 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 Nelson. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
5

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED