UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4868

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GARY W. ELLINGTON, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

District Judge. (3:05-cr-00083-REP-1)

Submitted: April 14, 2011 Decided: June 8, 2011

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Mary E. Maguire, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, Research 

and Writing Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. 

MacBride, United States Attorney, Brandon M. Santos, Special 

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gary W. Ellington, Jr., pleaded guilty to one count of 

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon/user of controlled 

substance and one count of possession of marijuana. He was 

sentenced to a total of fifty-one months’ imprisonment and three

years of supervised release. While on supervised release, 

Ellington violated several conditions of his supervised release. 

The district court revoked Ellington’s supervised release and 

sentenced him to eighteen months in prison followed by no 

further supervised release. Ellington appeals his sentence,

claiming that the district court’s sentence was plainly 

unreasonable. We affirm. 

This court will affirm a sentence imposed after 

revocation of supervised release if it is not plainly 

unreasonable. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th 

Cir. 2010). The first step in this review requires a 

determination of whether the sentence is unreasonable. United 

States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). “This 

initial inquiry takes a more ‘deferential appellate posture 

concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion’ than 

reasonableness review for [G]uidelines sentences.” United 

States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting 

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439) (applying “plainly unreasonable” 

standard of review for probation revocation). Only if the 
3

sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable does the 

inquiry proceed to the second step of the analysis to determine 

whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. Crudup, 461 F.3d 

at 438-39.

A supervised release revocation sentence is 

procedurally reasonable if the district court considered the 

advisory policy statement range based upon Chapter Seven of the 

Sentencing Guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors applicable to 

supervised release revocation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2006); 

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-40. A sentence is substantively

reasonable if the district court stated a proper basis for 

concluding the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up 

to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. “A court 

need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation 

sentence as it must be when imposing a post-conviction sentence, 

but it still must provide a statement of reasons for the 

sentence imposed.” Thompson

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 

, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal 

quotation marks omitted). After thoroughly reviewing the 

record, we conclude that Ellington’s sentence was both 

procedurally and substantively reasonable. 
4

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED