**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 4721** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,

v. ERIC LAMONT SMITH , Defendant

– Appellant
.

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

. Henry E. Hudson , District Judge. ( 3:03

- cr - 00306

- RLW )

Submitted : May 3, 2011 Decided: May 26, 2011

Before KING and GREGORY , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Charles D. Lewis, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Roderick C. Young, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this ci rcuit.2 PER CURIAM: Eric Lamont Smith was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine hydrochloride , in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)( 1 ) (2006), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U. S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2006). He served his active sentence and was released to supervision on January 30, 2008. After learning Smith had been arrested on additional drug and firearm charges , his probation officer petitioned the district court to revoke su pervised release. Smith admitted the violations, and the district court sentenced him to sixty months’ imprisonment, the top of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

Smith challenges the proce dural reasonableness of his supervised release sentence. He argues that the district court failed to adequately consider the factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). He contends that the district court stated no particularized reason why the sentence selec ted was no greater than necessary, and he argues that the district court failed to consider that Smith had received a lengthy sentence for the offenses underlying his supervised release violations. Smith does not challenge the substantive reasonableness o f his
sentence. (2009) policy statement range. Smith noted a timely appeal.3 In reviewing a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release, this c ourt “takes a more ‘deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion’ than reasonableness review for [G]uidelines
sentences .” United States v. Moulden , 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Crudup , 461 F.3d 433, 439 (4th Cir. 2006)). Because Smith did not request a sentence different than the one ultimately imposed, his sentence is reviewed for plain er ror. See United States v. Thompson , 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Lynn , 592 F.3d 572, 578

- 79 (4th Cir. 2010). To establish plain error, Smith “must show: (1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain; and (3) the error affects subst antial rights.” United States v. Massenburg , 564 F.3d 337, 342

- 43 (4th Cir. 2009).
We review the sentence for significant procedural error, including such errors as improperly calculating the policy statement range, failing to adequately explain the cho sen sentence, and failing to “consider the helpful assistance contained in the [USSG] Chapter 7 policy statements along with the statutory requirements of [18 U.S.C.] § 3583 and the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors applicable to revocation
sentences.” Crudup , 461 F.3d at 439 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “A court need not be as detailed or4 specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a post

- conviction sente nce, but it still ‘must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed.’” Thompson , 595 F.3d at 547 (quoting Moulden , 478 F.3d at 656). We conclude that the district court adequately explained the sentence imposed. “[W]hen a judge decides simp ly to apply the Guidelines to a particular case, doing so will not necessarily require lengthy explanation.” Rita v. United
States , 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). Here, Smith made no argument for a particular sentence, and only asked that the district
court c onsider that he had received a fourteen

- year sentence for the offenses comprising his supervised release violation. The district court clearly considered and rejected this argument, as reflected by the court’s remark that the flagrancy of Smith’s violatio ns evidenced the necessity of a higher sentence “to promote respect for the law and provide for some deterrence.” Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequatel y presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED