UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4806

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY WAYNE CAMERON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

Senior District Judge. (1:95-cr-00266-JAB-2)

Submitted: April 13, 2015 Decided: April 17, 2015

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen F. Wallace, WALLACE LAW FIRM, High Point, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Wayne Cameron appeals his sentence of 51 months’ 

imprisonment imposed by the district court upon revocation of 

his supervised release. On appeal, Cameron’s counsel has filed 

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but 

raising as a potential issue whether the district court properly 

sentenced Cameron. Although notified of his right to do so, 

Cameron has not filed a pro se supplemental 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). A revocation 

sentence that “is within the statutory maximum and is not 

‘plainly unreasonable’” will be affirmed on appeal. Id.

(quoting United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 

2006)). In so evaluating a sentence, we assess it for 

reasonableness, utilizing “the procedural and substantive 

considerations” employed in evaluating an original criminal 

sentence. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438. 

A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the 

district court has considered the policy statements contained in 

Chapter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines and the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) (2012) factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) 

(2012). Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. The district court also must 
3

provide an explanation for its chosen sentence, but the 

explanation “need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a 

revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a postconviction sentence.” United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 

547 (4th Cir. 2010). A revocation sentence is substantively 

reasonable if the district court states a proper basis for 

concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence 

imposed. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. Only if we find a sentence 

to be procedurally or substantively unreasonable will we 

determine whether the sentence is “plainly” so. Id. at 439. 

Here, the district court properly considered the arguments 

from counsel, allocution from Cameron, the statutory maximum 

sentences upon revocation, and the § 3553(a) factors enumerated 

in § 3583(e) before sentencing Cameron at the bottom of the 

policy statement range. While the district court’s explanation 

for its sentence was not lengthy, it provided a sentence 

tailored to Cameron, focusing specifically on the nature and 

circumstances of his violations of supervised release. We 

therefore conclude that Cameron’s sentence is neither 

procedurally nor substantively unreasonable and, therefore, is 

not plainly so.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in 

this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We 

therefore affirm the district court’s judgment revoking 
4

supervised release. This court requires that counsel inform 

Cameron, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court 

of the United States for further review. If Cameron 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 Cameron.

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