UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4597

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JUVENILE MALE #3,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (7:06-cr-00065-F-3)

Submitted: June 10, 2010 Decided: June 28, 2010

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Research and 

Writing Specialist, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, 

Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Juvenile Male #3 appeals the district court’s judgment 

revoking his juvenile delinquent supervision and sentencing him 

to twenty-four months in prison. Appellant argues that his 

sentence is plainly unreasonable because the district court 

allegedly failed to acknowledge his attorney’s arguments in 

mitigation at sentencing. Finding no error, we affirm the 

district court’s judgment.

This court will affirm a sentence imposed after 

revocation of a juvenile delinquent supervision period if it is 

within the prescribed statutory range and not plainly 

unreasonable. See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437-39 

(4th Cir. 2006). In making this determination, we first 

consider whether the sentence is 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 [G]uidelines sentences.” United 

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

quotation marks and citation omitted).

The district court’s discretion is not unlimited, 

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

2010). For instance, the district court commits procedural 

error by failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence or by 

not providing an individualized assessment based on the facts. 
3

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (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 

sentence imposed.” Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). The district court also

must “set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that [it]

has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis 

for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.” 

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).

Although we generally review preserved sentencing 

errors for an abuse of discretion, reversing only if an error is 

not harmless, this court will review a procedural sentencing 

error raised for the first time on appeal for plain error. See

United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575-79 (4th Cir. 2010). We 

find that the district court did not commit error, plain or 

otherwise, when it imposed Appellant’s twenty-four-month 

sentence.

Contrary to Appellant’s assertion, we find that the 

district court said enough to indicate that it rejected the bulk 

of counsel’s argument in light of Appellant’s “egregious conduct 

while on supervision[.]” In fact, one of defense counsel’s 

concerns at sentencing was that Appellant was unable to receive 

drug treatment when he was originally sentenced. The district 
4

court responded to this concern when it explicitly mentioned 

Appellant’s need for intensive substance abuse treatment as a 

reason for imposing the twenty-four-month sentence. Although, 

admittedly, the “district court in this case might have said 

more,” given the deference this court affords revocation cases 

and “the context of this case[,]” we are satisfied that the 

district court considered Appellant’s arguments and had a 

reasoned basis for imposing the twenty-four-month sentence. See

United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 269, 271-72 (4th Cir. 

2010); cf. Thompson, 595 F.3d at 546-47 (finding that district 

court procedurally erred in sentencing defendant in supervised 

release revocation case where the court merely indicated what 

the defendant’s term of imprisonment would be, provided no other 

explanation for the sentence imposed, and did not respond to 

counsel’s argument in mitigation).

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