UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4068

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID LAMAR ANDREWS,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (4:12-cr-00024-RAJ-DEM1)

Submitted: August 29, 2023 Decided: August 31, 2023

Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, Appellate 

Attorney, Wilfredo Bonilla, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE 

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, 

United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Dee M. Sterling, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia; 

Anthony L. Pappas, Second Year Law Student, WILLIAM & MARY LAW SCHOOL, 

Williamsburg, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4068 Doc: 22 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

David Lamar Andrews appeals the 28-month sentence imposed following the 

revocation of his supervised release. On appeal, he argues that the sentence is plainly 

procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately 

explain the sentence and imposed a term greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing 

goals articulated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Finding no error, we affirm.

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

supervised release. [We] will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory 

maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Patterson, 957 F.3d 426, 436 

(4th Cir. 2020). To determine whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we 

first determine whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable, 

evaluating “the same procedural and substantive considerations that guide our review of 

original sentences” but taking “a more deferential appellate posture than we do when 

reviewing original sentences.” United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015) 

(cleaned up).

“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.” United 

States v. Coston, 964 F.3d 289, 297 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted); 

see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (listing sentencing factors applicable to revocation proceedings). 

“A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if, in light of the totality of the 

circumstances, the court states an appropriate basis for concluding that the defendant 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4068 Doc: 22 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
3

should receive the sentence imposed.” Coston, 964 F.3d at 297 (internal quotation marks 

omitted).

Contrary to Andrews’ arguments on appeal, the record reflects that the district court 

adequately explained the sentence and stated an appropriate basis for the conclusion that 

Andrews should receive the sentence it imposed. The court considered Andrews’ mental 

health issues and the policy statement range of 8 to 14 months’ imprisonment, but it 

ultimately found that the maximum available sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment was 

warranted given Andrews’ history and characteristics. Specifically, the court explained 

that, despite a substantial reduction to his original sentence and two prior releases on 

supervision—both of which were revoked shortly after their commencement—Andrews 

refused to follow the probation officer’s instructions, accept responsibility for his actions, 

or take advantage of the mental health treatment opportunities presented to him. Therefore, 

we conclude that Andrews’ sentence is not plainly unreasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm the revocation judgment. 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: 23-4068 Doc: 22 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 3 of 3