UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4681

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

IVAN CLIFTON POWELL,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:10-cr-00197-NCT-1)

Submitted: July 8, 2022 Decided: July 25, 2022

Before MOTZ and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: George E. Crump, III, Rockingham, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

Ashley E. Waid, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4681 Doc: 18 Filed: 07/25/2022 Pg: 1 of 5
2

PER CURIAM:

Ivan Clifton Powell appeals from the revocation of his supervised release and the 

imposition of a 21-month sentence of imprisonment, followed by 12 months of supervised 

release. On appeal, Powell’s attorney 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 district court imposed a plainly unreasonable sentence. Although 

advised of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, Powell has not done so, and the 

Government has declined to file a brief. 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. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438-39 (4th Cir. 2006). “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). In this initial inquiry, we “take[] 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) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

A revocation sentence can be either procedurally or substantively unreasonable, 

Webb, 738 F.3d at 640, and we generally employ the same procedural and substantive 

considerations that guide our review of original sentences, Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438. “A 

revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court adequately explains the 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4681 Doc: 18 Filed: 07/25/2022 Pg: 2 of 5
3

chosen sentence after considering the . . . Chapter Seven policy statements and the 

applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th 

Cir. 2017); 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. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. Only if we find a 

sentence unreasonable do we consider “whether it is plainly so.” Webb, 738 F.3d at 640 

(internal quotation marks omitted).

When imposing a revocation sentence, a district court must address the parties’ 

nonfrivolous arguments in favor of a particular sentence, and if the court rejects those 

arguments, it must explain why in a detailed-enough manner to allow for meaningful 

appellate review. Slappy, 872 F.3d at 207-08. An explanation is sufficient if we can 

determine “that the sentencing court considered the applicable sentencing factors with 

regard to the particular defendant before it and also considered any potentially meritorious 

arguments raised by the parties with regard to sentencing.” United States v. Gibbs, 897 

F.3d 199, 204 (4th Cir. 2018) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).

We find that the selected revocation sentence is both procedurally and substantively 

reasonable. Powell’s original conviction was a Class C felony. 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(3); 

see 18 U.S.C. 922(g), 924(a)(8) (providing for maximum sentence of 15 years). Therefore, 

upon revocation of his supervised release, Powell was subject to a maximum prison term 

of two years. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Thus, the 21-month revocation sentence was within 

the statutory maximum. 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4681 Doc: 18 Filed: 07/25/2022 Pg: 3 of 5
4

Powell’s most serious violation was a Grade B violation, and his original criminal 

history category was VI. Thus, his policy statement imprisonment range was 21 to 27 

months, revised to 21 to 24 months due to the statutory maximum. USSG § 7B1.4(a), p.s. 

The district court appropriately considered the Chapter Seven policy statements and the 

applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, specifically referencing the nature and 

circumstances of the offense and Powell’s repeated inability to comply with supervised 

release. The court expressly relied on the need to protect the public and to deter future 

conduct by Powell and others, noting that Powell’s use of a “Whizzinator” interfered with 

the Government’s ability to supervise people on release. The court considered Powell’s 

arguments in mitigation but determined that his newfound commitment to compliance was 

difficult to believe given his past. We find that the district court appropriately considered 

the relevant factors and adequately explained the selected 21-month sentence. 

Finally, we must consider the substantive reasonableness of the selected sentence. 

We find that, in view of the totality of the circumstances, nothing in the record overcomes 

the presumption of substantive reasonableness afforded the within-range sentence that 

Powell received. Therefore, Powell’s sentence of imprisonment is substantively and 

procedurally reasonable. 

The maximum term of supervised release that can be reimposed following 

revocation is the maximum term of supervised release authorized by statute upon which 

the underlying conviction is based minus the imprisonment imposed upon revocation. See 

USSG § 7B1.3(g)(2), p.s. At the time of the original offense, the authorized term of 

supervised release allowable was three years. 18 U.S.C. 3583(b)(2) Because the court 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4681 Doc: 18 Filed: 07/25/2022 Pg: 4 of 5
5

sentenced Powell to 21 months in prison upon revocation, the imposition of a 12-month 

term of supervised release following the revocation sentence was within the maximum 

authorized term. Additionally, the district court adequately explained its rationale for 

imposing the supervised release term, as well as the conditions of supervised release. 

Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no 

meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires that counsel 

inform Powell, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States 

for further review. If Powell 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 

Powell. 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: 21-4681 Doc: 18 Filed: 07/25/2022 Pg: 5 of 5