UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-5212

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EUGENE EDMONDS, JR., a/k/a Boo,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (3:04-cr-00339-RLW-1)

Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: November 24, 2010

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Elizabeth S. 

Wilson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, 

Research and Writing Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Olivia N. 

Hawkins, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eugene Edmonds, Jr., appeals from the twenty-four 

month sentence imposed pursuant to the revocation of his 

supervised release. On appeal, Edmonds asserts that his 

sentence is procedurally plainly unreasonable because the 

district court failed to adequately explain its reasoning for 

the sentence imposed. We affirm. 

A sentence imposed after revocation of supervised 

release should be affirmed if it is within the applicable 

statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. United 

States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). In 

making this determination, we first consider whether the 

sentence is unreasonable. Id. at 438. “This initial inquiry 

takes a more deferential appellate posture concerning issues of 

fact and the exercise of discretion than reasonableness review 

for guideline sentences.” United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 

652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). In making our review, we “follow 

generally the procedural and substantive considerations that 

[are] employ[ed] in [the] review of original sentences, . . . 

with some necessary modifications to take into account the 

unique nature of supervised release revocation sentences.” 

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-39.

A sentence imposed upon revocation of release is 

procedurally reasonable if the district court considered the 
3

Chapter Seven policy statements and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

(2006) factors that it is permitted to consider. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(e); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-40. A sentence imposed upon 

revocation of release is substantively reasonable if the 

district court stated a proper basis for concluding that the 

defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the 

statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. We will affirm if 

the sentence is not unreasonable. Id. at 439. Only if a 

sentence is found procedurally or substantively unreasonable 

will we “decide whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable.” 

Id.

When imposing sentence, the district court must 

provide individualized reasoning. See United States v. Carter, 

564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). The Carter rationale applies 

to revocation hearings; however, “a court need not be as 

detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it 

must be when imposing a post-conviction sentence.” United 

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

Edmonds did not request a sentence different from the one 

imposed, review is for plain error. See United States v. Lynn, 

592 F.3d 572, 580 (4th Cir. 2010).

We conclude that Edmonds failed to make the requisite 

showings. The district court acknowledged that Edmonds had 

potential but lacked discipline, and that he had been given 
4

other opportunities to improve his life. The court explicitly 

noted the Guidelines range (eight to fourteen months) and the 

statutory maximum when arriving at a sentence. In addition, the 

court recommended that Edmonds receive vocational training, 

educational opportunities, and drug rehabilitation. 

Because Edmonds’ sentence is reviewed for plain error, 

he must also show that there is a reasonable probability that 

the claimed irregularity in sentencing affected his substantial 

rights and that any error affected the fairness and integrity of 

the judicial system. Edmonds’ assertion of error illustrates

essentially a disagreement with the district court’s conclusions 

that his behavior constituted continuing serious breaches of his 

release conditions. Edmonds cannot show that his substantial 

rights were affected or that the sentencing error was so 

egregious that it called into question the fairness of the 

sentencing system.

Accordingly, we affirm Edmonds’ sentence. 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