UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-5261

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSE HERNANDEZ MANSANARES, a/k/a Jose Hernandez Manzanarez, 

a/k/a Fabian Mansanares, a/k/a Jorge Fabian Manzanares 

Hernandez,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, Chief District 

Judge. (2:05-cr-00986-DCN-1)

Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 2, 2011

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cameron J. Blazer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, 

Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Peter Thomas 

Phillips, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jose Hernandez Mansanares appeals the eighteen-month 

sentence of imprisonment imposed by the district court upon 

revocation of supervised release. The district court ordered 

the sentence to run consecutive to a fifty-seven month sentence 

imposed following Mansanares’s guilty plea to a separately 

charged drug offense. On appeal, Mansanares’s counsel has filed 

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

stating that, in her opinion, there are no meritorious issues 

for appeal. Counsel questions whether the eighteen-month 

sentence is unreasonable, but concludes that the sentence is 

reasonable because it is within the proscribed statutory range 

and based on appropriate considerations. In his pro se 

supplemental brief, Mansanares asserts that his sentence is 

excessive. The Government declined to file a brief. 

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). In determining whether a 

sentence is plainly unreasonable, we first consider whether the 

sentence imposed is unreasonable. Id. at 438. In making this 

determination, we follow “the procedural and substantive 

considerations that we employ in our review of original 

sentences.” Id. at 438. In this inquiry, we take a more 
3

deferential posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise 

of discretion than reasonableness review of 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. 

While a district court must consider Chapter Seven’s 

policy statements and the statutory provisions applicable to 

revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e) (2006), 

the district court need not robotically tick through every 

subsection, and it has broad discretion to revoke the previous 

sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory 

maximum provided by § 3583(e)(3). Moulden, 478 F.3d at 656-57 

(4th Cir. 2007); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. Moreover, while a 

district court must provide a statement of the reasons for the 

sentence imposed, the 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). The eighteen-month sentence 

imposed by the district court was within the advisory Guidelines 

range and the prescribed statutory range. The district court 

did not abuse its discretion in ordering the sentence to run 

consecutive to the sentence imposed for Mansanares’s other 

conviction, and the sentence is not unreasonable.
4

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform Mansanares in writing of 

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

further review. If Mansanares 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 Mansanares. 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