UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4160

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES MICHAEL CONLEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:15-cr-00076-TSK-MJA-1)

Submitted: January 31, 2024 Decided: February 12, 2024

Before HARRIS and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Scott C. Brown, SCOTT C. BROWN LAW OFFICE, Wheeling, West 

Virginia, for Appellant. Sarah Wagner, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4160 Doc: 21 Filed: 02/12/2024 Pg: 1 of 4
2 

PER CURIAM: 

James Michael Conley appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised 

release and sentencing him to 18 months’ imprisonment without an additional term of 

supervised release. 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 

whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. The Government has declined to file a brief. 

Although notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Conley has not done so. 

We affirm. 

“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of 

supervised release.” United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). “We will 

affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly 

unreasonable.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). “When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly 

unreasonable, we must first determine whether it is unreasonable at all.” United States v.

Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010). “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.” Slappy, 872 F.3d at 207 (footnote omitted); see 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(e). A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the court states a proper 

basis for concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the 

statutory maximum. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 440 (4th Cir. 2006). “A court 

need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4160 Doc: 21 Filed: 02/12/2024 Pg: 2 of 4
3 

imposing a post-conviction sentence, but it still must provide a statement of reasons for the 

sentence imposed.” Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks omitted). Only 

if a sentence is either procedurally or substantively unreasonable is a determination then

made as to whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. United States v. Moulden, 478

F.3d 652, 656-57 (4th Cir. 2007). Although “we must consider the extent of [any] variance 

from the [policy statement] range,” we will not vacate a defendant’s sentence just because 

we conclude a different sentence might have been appropriate. See United States v. 

McKinnie, 21 F.4th 283, 292 (4th Cir. 2021). 

We conclude that Conley’s sentence is both procedurally and substantively 

reasonable. Although the district court imposed a sentence above the Sentencing 

Guidelines’ policy statement range, it considered the relevant statutory factors and gave 

sufficiently detailed reasons for the imposed sentence, expressly noting Conley’s repeated 

inability to abide by the conditions of his supervised release and breach of the court’s trust. 

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 Conley, in writing, of the right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Conley 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 Conley. 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4160 Doc: 21 Filed: 02/12/2024 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: 23-4160 Doc: 21 Filed: 02/12/2024 Pg: 4 of 4