UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4755

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TERRENCE ANTOINE MCARTHUR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,

Chief District Judge. (3:11-cr-00055-1)

Submitted: March 10, 2015 Decided: March 18, 2015

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael A. Davenport, LAMBERT LAW OFFICE, Ironton, Ohio, for 

Appellant. Richard Gregory McVey, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Terrence Antoine McArthur appeals his sentence imposed by 

the district court upon revocation of his supervised release. 

McArthur admitted the alleged violations, and the district court 

sentenced him at the high end of his Chapter Seven policy 

statement range to 18 months in prison followed by 18 months of 

supervised release. McArthur’s attorney has filed a brief under 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are 

no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning the propriety 

of his sentence. McArthur was informed of his right to file a 

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

“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 will affirm the 

sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and not plainly 

unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 

(4th Cir. 2006). Only if we conclude that the sentence is 

unreasonable must we decide whether it is plainly so. United 

States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 657 (4th Cir. 2007). We 

presume that a sentence within the Chapter Seven policy 

statement range is reasonable. Webb, 738 F.3d at 642.

We have reviewed the record and conclude that McArthur’s 

sentence is both within the statutory maximum and the policy 

statement range, and he fails to rebut the presumption that it 
3

is reasonable. On appeal, he argues that he should be granted 

relief from the sentence because he was not provided a community 

confinement center placement when he was first released from 

prison. However, the district court adequately explained why a 

prison sentence at the high end of the policy statement range 

was appropriate in this case, and the court considered his 

argument by ordering as a special condition of supervised 

release that he reside in a community confinement center for the 

first six months. McArthur also argues that the court’s oral 

pronouncement at sentencing differs from the written judgment. 

In such a case, the oral pronouncement controls. See United 

States v. Osborne, 345 F.3d 281, 283 n.1 (4th Cir. 2003). 

However, having reviewed the record, we find no conflict between 

the oral pronouncement and written judgment in this case.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the 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 his or her client, in writing, of 

his or her 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 
4

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