UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4337

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EDWARD VENEZ SHIPMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (7:03-cr-00044-F-1)

Submitted: October 29, 2010 Decided: November 12, 2010

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, James E. Todd, Jr., Research 

and Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. MayParker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Edward Venez Shipman appeals the twenty-four-month 

sentence he received upon revocation of his supervised release. 

He contends that the district court imposed a plainly 

unreasonable sentence, failing to address mitigating factors and 

to provide sufficient reason for a sentence above the 7-13-month 

revocation range set out in Chapter 7 of the U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual (2009). We affirm. 

The district court has broad discretion to impose a 

sentence upon revoking a defendant’s supervised release. United 

States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). We will 

affirm unless the sentence is “plainly unreasonable” in light of 

the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. United 

States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). 

We must first “decide whether the sentence is 

unreasonable.” Id. at 438. In doing so, we “follow generally 

the procedural and substantive considerations” used in reviewing 

original sentences. Id.. A sentence is procedurally reasonable 

if the district court has considered the policy statements 

contained in Chapter 7 of the guidelines and the applicable 

§ 3553(a) factors, id. at 440, and has adequately explained the 

sentence chosen, though it need not explain the sentence in as 

much detail as when imposing the original sentence. Thompson, 

595 F.3d at 547. A sentence is substantively reasonable if the 
3

district court states a proper basis for its imposition of a 

sentence up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. 

If, after considering the above, we are convinced that the 

sentence is not unreasonable, we will affirm. Id. at 439.

Under this court’s deferential standard of review, 

Shipman’s sentence is not procedurally or substantively 

unreasonable. Shipman argues that the district court failed to 

consider his inability to secure a stable residence. He also 

claims that the court failed to give sufficient reasons for the 

extent of its variance above the guideline range, and thus 

failed to follow the mandate in § 3553(a) to impose a sentence 

“sufficient but not greater than necessary” to fulfill the 

statute’s sentencing purposes. The court also heard the 

probation officer’s testimony about his effort to supervise 

Shipman for over a year and Shipman’s lack of cooperation, as 

evidenced by his repeated marijuana use, additional criminal 

conduct, failure to stay in contact with the probation officer, 

and unwillingness to return to a residential reentry center to 

remedy his homeless state. Last, the district court heard 

Shipman’s statement in which he asserted that the probation 

officer had failed to help him despite his requests for help.

The district court expressly considered the advisory 

Chapter 7 guideline range of 7-13 months. However, the court 

determined that the guideline range did not adequately account 
4

for Shipman’s “pattern of refusing to follow the rules,” thus 

impliedly accepting the probation officer’s version of events 

during his period of supervised release. A revocation sentence 

“should sanction primarily the defendant’s breach of trust.” 

USSG ch. 7, pt. A, intro. cmt. 3(b). We conclude that Shipman’s 

twenty-four-month sentence was not unreasonable. 

We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the 

district court. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED