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

**No. 15**  **- 4345** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. WILLIE ANTHONY SAXBY , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 1:11

- cr - 00132

- NCT

- 1 )

Submitted : November 4, 2015 Decided: December 2, 2015

Before WILKINSON , MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Robert L. McC l ellan, IVEY, MCCLELLAN, GATTON & SIEGMUND, LLP , Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Michael Hamilton, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: In 2013, Willie Anthony Saxby pled guilty to passing and possessing counterfeit currency, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472 (2012), and the district court sentenced him to 36 months’ imprisonme nt , to be followed by a 3

- year term of supervised release. T he district court found that while Saxby was on supervised release, he violated the terms of his release by (1) failing to notify the probation officer ten days prior to moving from his approved residence , and (2) testing positive for marijuana and using alcohol in excess. The district court sentenced Saxby to 12 months’ imprisonment and an additional 24 months’ supervised release. In accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Sa xby’s counsel has filed a brief certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Saxby has filed a supplemental brief raising several issues. We affirm the district court’s judgment. To revoke supervised release, a district court need only fi nd a violation of a condition of release by a preponderance of the evidence . 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2012). “We review a district court’s ultimate decision to revoke a defendant’s supervised release for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Padgett , 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015). A district court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error. Id. We conclude that the district court’s factual findings are not clearly3 erroneous and that the court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Saxby ’s supervised release. “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). “ We w ill affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory m aximum and is not plainly unreasonable.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Saxby’s sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment to be followed by 24 months’ supervised release is within the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § § 3559(a)(3), 3583(b)(2), (e)(3) , (h) (2012). “When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we must first determine whether it is unreasonable at all.” United States v. Thompson , 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010). A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonabl e if the district court adequately explains the sentence after considering the Sentencing Guidelines’ Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors. Id. at 546

- 47 ; see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012). “Regardless of whe ther the district court imposes an above, below, or within

- Guidelines sentence, it must place on the record an ‘individualized assessment’ based on the particular facts of the case before it.” United States v. Carter , 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (qu oting Gall v. United States , 5524 U.S. 38, 50 (2007)). “A court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a post

- conviction sentence, but it still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentenc e imposed.” Thompson , 595 F.3d at 547 (inte rnal quotation marks omitted). A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the court states a proper basis for concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maxi mum. United States v. Crudup , 461 F.3d 433, 440 (4th Cir. 2006). Only if we find a sentence to be unreasonable will we consider whether it is plainly so. Id. at 439. While the district court did not explicitly refer to the Sentencing Guidelines’ Chapter Seven policy statements, Saxby’s policy statement range, or the relevant § 3553(a) factors, the district court’s rationale is apparent from the context surrounding its decision. See United States v. Montes

- Pineda , 445 F.3d 375, 381 (4th Cir. 2006). Defe nse c ounsel advised the district court of Saxby’s correct policy statement range of 8 to 14 months’ imprisonment , and the sentence imposed falls within that range. Additionally, the district court’s explanation of its sentence, while not explicitly mentioning § 3553(a), refer red to the nature and circumstances of Saxby’s violations and the need for the sentence to deter future violations. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1 ), (2)(B). Moreover, the district court5 offered an individualized explanation of why it was sentencing Saxby to serve a term of imprisonment and an additional term of supervised release. Thus, we conclude that Saxby’s sentence is reasonable. In accordanc e with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record in this case , including the issues raised in Saxby’s pro se brief, and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment and deny as moot Saxby’s motion to exp edite . This court requires that counsel inform Saxby , in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Saxby 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 Saxby

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma terials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED