UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4738

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CLAUDE ALEXANDER BOOKER, a/k/a Danny Booker, a/k/a Pine,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:04-

cr-00235-RWT-26)

Submitted: May 30, 2013 Decided: June 4, 2013

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mirriam Z. Seddiq, MIRRIAM Z. SEDDIQ, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, 

for Appellant. Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Claude Alexander Booker appeals the district court’s 

order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 

twenty-four months of imprisonment and a thirty-six-month term 

of supervised release. Counsel has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that 

there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning 

whether Booker’s sentence is plainly unreasonable. Although 

notified of his right to do so, Booker has not filed a pro se 

supplemental brief. We affirm. 

This court will affirm a sentence imposed after 

revocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed 

statutory range and is not plainly unreasonable. United 

States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438-40 (4th Cir. 2006). While a 

district court must consider the Chapter Seven policy 

statements, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ch. 7, pt. B, and 

the statutory requirements and factors applicable to revocation 

sentences under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e) (2006), the 

district court “ultimately has broad discretion to revoke 

[supervised release] and impose a term of imprisonment up to the 

statutory maximum.” Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439 (internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

A supervised release revocation sentence is 

procedurally reasonable if the district court considered the 
3

Chapter 7 advisory policy statements and the applicable 

§ 3553(a) factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 

440. And although the district court need not explain a 

revocation sentence in as much detail as an original sentence, 

it “still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence 

imposed.” United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th 

Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). A revocation 

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. Only if a sentence is found 

procedurally or substantively unreasonable will this court “then 

decide whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable.” Id. at 

439 (emphasis omitted). 

Here, the district court correctly calculated Booker’s 

advisory policy statement range and considered the applicable 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. The twenty-four-month sentence 

does not exceed the applicable statutory maximum of thirty-six 

months’ imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The court was 

also well within its statutory authority to sentence Booker to 

an additional term of supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h). 

Because the district court also clearly explained the basis for 

Booker’s sentence, we find no error in its imposition. 
4

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We 

therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court 

requires that counsel inform Booker, in writing, of his right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Booker requests that a petition be filed, but 

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, 

counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Booker. 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