UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4093

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ANDRE HORNE,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior

District Judge. (5:96-cr-00200-BR-1)

Submitted: June 24, 2010 Decided: June 30, 2010

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, for Appellant. George E. B. 

Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. MayParker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Andre Horne appeals from the district court’s order 

revoking his supervised release and imposing a forty-six-month 

prison term. He contends that the sentence imposed is plainly 

unreasonable because the district court failed to calculate his

advisory guideline range. We affirm.

We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of 

supervised release if it is within the applicable statutory 

maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. See United States v. 

Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). We first 

review the sentence for unreasonableness, “follow[ing] generally 

the procedural and substantive considerations that we employ in 

our review of original sentences, . . . with some necessary 

modifications to take into account the unique nature of 

supervised release revocation sentences.” Id. at 438-39. If we 

conclude that a sentence is not unreasonable, we will affirm the 

sentence. Id. at 439. Only if a sentence is found procedurally 

or substantively unreasonable will we “decide whether the 

sentence is plainly unreasonable.” Id.

A supervised release revocation sentence is 

procedurally reasonable if the district court considered the 

Chapter Seven advisory policy statements and the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) (2006) factors that it is permitted to consider in a 

supervised release revocation case. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)
3

(West 2000 & Supp. 2010); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. Such a 

sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court 

stated a proper basis for concluding the defendant should 

receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. 

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. A sentence is plainly unreasonable if 

it is clearly or obviously unreasonable. Id. at 439.

The district court “need not engage in ritualistic 

incantation” in order to satisfy its burden of considering the 

Chapter 7 policy statements. United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 

638, 642 (4th Cir. 1995). Here, the district court clearly 

stated that it had considered the Chapter 7 policy statements, 

which include the advisory imprisonment ranges upon revocation 

of supervised release. So long as the advisory range was put 

before the court, “[c]onsideration is implicit in the court’s 

ultimate ruling.” Id.

The district court clearly considered the advisory 

guideline range and imposed sentence at the bottom of that 

range. We find that the forty-six-month term imposed on 

revocation was not “plainly unreasonable.” Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s judgment. 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