UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4362

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BRANDON ONTRELL WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior 

District Judge. (2:07-cr-01122-PMD-1)

Submitted: September 20, 2013 Decided: September 26, 2013

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cameron J. Blazer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, 

Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Nathan S. Williams, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Brandon Ontrell Williams appeals the district court’s 

judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 

six months’ imprisonment followed by the remainder of his period 

of supervised release, less his six month sentence. Williams’ 

attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious 

arguments for appeal and that Williams’ sentence was not plainly 

unreasonable. Williams was notified of his right to file a pro 

se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.

We review a district court’s judgment revoking 

supervised release and imposing a term of imprisonment for abuse 

of discretion. United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th 

Cir. 1992). We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation 

of supervised release if it is within the prescribed statutory 

range and not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 

461 F.3d 433, 439–40 (4th Cir. 2006). We first consider whether 

the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Id.

at 438. In this initial inquiry, we take a more deferential 

posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion 

than reasonableness review for Guidelines sentences. United 

States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). Only if 

we find the sentence procedurally or substantively unreasonable 

must we decide whether it is “plainly” so. Id. at 657.
3

While a district court must consider the Chapter Seven 

policy statements and the statutory factors applicable to 

revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e) (West 

2000 & Supp. 2013), the court need not robotically tick through 

every subsection, and ultimately, the court has broad discretion 

to revoke the previous sentence and impose a term of 

imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. Id. at 656–57. 

Moreover, while a district court must provide a statement of 

reasons for the sentence, the court need not be as detailed or 

specific when imposing a revocation sentence as when imposing a 

post-conviction sentence. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 

544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the 

court properly revoked supervised release, that Williams’ 

sentence is reasonable, and that the district court did not 

abuse its discretion. Williams admitted to the three 

violations. The sentence is within the prescribed statutory 

range and the Chapter Seven policy statement range, and the 

district court reasonably determined that a sentence at the low 

end of the range was appropriate in this case. Moreover, in 

accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and 

have found no meritorious issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, 
4

of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States 

for further review. If the client 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 the client. 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