UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 4094

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. TIMOTHY TYRONE BYERS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Martinsburg

. Gina M. Groh , Chief District Judge. ( 3:18

- cr - 00030

- GMG

- R W T

- 1 )

Submitted : June 13, 2019 Decided: June 17, 2019

Before WYNN and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

A ffirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Kristen M. Leddy, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kimberl e y DeAnne C rockett, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Timothy Tyrone Byers appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a sentence of 21 months of imprisonment. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning th e reasonableness of Byers’ sentence. Byers has filed a pro se supplemental brief generally alleging that he is entitled to additional custody credit . 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 a revocation sentence that “is within the prescribed statutory range and is not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Crudup , 461 F.3d 433, 440 (4th Cir. 2006). “When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, [we] must first determine whether it is unreasonable at all.” United States v. Thompson , 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010). Only if a sentence is either procedurally or substantively

unreas onable is a determination then made as to whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. United States v. Moulden , 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Byers’ within

- range sentence

— to which he agreed

— is not unreasonable, much less plainly so

. To the extent Byers seeks credit for time spent in state custody, it is the responsibility of the Attorney General, n ot a
court , to determine whether an inmate should receive credit for time served prior to commencing a federal term of imprisonment

. United States v. Wilson , 503 U.S. 329, 334 (1992 ).3 In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record in this c ase and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court . This court requires that counsel inform Byers , in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. I f Byers 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 Byers

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED