UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4882

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

CHARLES ORLANDO SIMMONS, a/k/a Darryl McMillan, a/k/a Big 

Flip,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(4:07-cr-01037-RBH-1)

Submitted: April 10, 2014 Decided: May 1, 2014

Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender, 

Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Orlando Simmons appeals from the revocation of 

his supervised release and his resulting eighteen-month prison 

term. On appeal, Simmons’ attorney has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in 

which he asserts that there are no meritorious issues for appeal 

but questions whether Simmons’ sentence is plainly unreasonable. 

Although advised of his right to file a supplemental pro se 

brief, Simmons has not done so. After our review of the record, 

we affirm.

We review a district court’s judgment revoking 

supervised release and imposing a term of imprisonment for abuse 

of discretion. United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th 

Cir. 1999). A sentence imposed after revocation of supervised 

release should be affirmed if it is within the applicable 

statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. United 

States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). In

making this determination, we first consider whether the 

sentence imposed is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. 

Id. at 438. “This initial inquiry takes a more deferential 

appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of 

discretion than reasonableness review for guidelines sentences.” 

United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). 
3

A sentence imposed upon revocation of release is 

procedurally reasonable if the district court considered the 

Chapter Seven Policy Statements and the applicable 18 U.S.C. §

3553 (2012) factors, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012); Crudup, 461 

F.3d at 438-40, and adequately explained the sentence imposed, 

United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). A 

sentence imposed upon revocation of release is substantively 

reasonable if the district court stated a proper basis for 

concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence 

imposed, within the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. 

We affirm if the sentence is not unreasonable. Id. at 439. 

Only if a sentence is found procedurally or substantively 

unreasonable will we “decide whether the sentence is plainly

unreasonable.” Id. “[T]he court ultimately has broad 

discretion to revoke its previous sentence and impose a term of 

imprisonment up to the statutory maximum.” Id. (internal 

quotation marks omitted).

We conclude that Simmons’ sentence is both 

procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court 

considered the Chapter 7 Policy Statements and relevant 

statutory factors (including the nature and circumstances of the 

offense and Simmons’ failure to comply with the terms of 

supervised release), and properly imposed a sentence within the 

policy statement range and below the statutory maximum.
4

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This 

court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of 

his 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 with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED