UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4576

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GARY LEE BEATTY,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

District Judge. (7:01-cr-00086-F-1)

Submitted: June 23, 2010 Decided: July 6, 2010

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

Assistant Federal Public Defender, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Gary Lee Beatty appeals the length of the 24-month 

sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him following revocation 

of his term of supervised release. We affirm.

We review sentences imposed after the revocation of 

supervised release under the deferential “plainly unreasonable” 

standard “with regard to those § 3553(a) factors applicable to 

supervised release revocation sentences.” United States v. 

Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). In applying the

standard, we first decide whether the sentence was procedurally 

and substantively reasonable, “with some necessary modifications 

to take into account the unique nature of supervised release 

revocation sentences.” Id. at 438-39. A sentence is 

procedurally reasonable if the district court considered the 

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Chapter 7 policy statements1

 1 Chapter 7 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

addresses violations of supervised release and probation. 

Rather than promulgate guidelines to govern sentences for these 

violations, the United States Sentencing Commission chose 

instead to issue “policy statements only” to give courts 

“greater flexibility” in handling revocation sentences. Ch. 7, 

Pt. A, introductory cmts. 1, 3(a).

and the pertinent factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. at 440. 

A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the 

district court stated a proper basis for the sentence imposed, 

up to the statutory maximum. In addition, “a court’s statement 
3

of its reasons for going beyond non-binding policy statements in 

imposing a sentence after revoking a defendant’s supervised 

release term need not be as specific as has been required when 

courts departed from guidelines that were, before [United States 

v. ]Booker, [543 U.S. 220 (2005),] considered to be mandatory.” 

Id. at 439 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

If a sentence is not unreasonable under this standard, 

“the sentence should be affirmed.” Id. If, however, the 

sentence is either substantively or procedurally unreasonable,

“we must then decide whether the sentence is plainly 

unreasonable, relying on the definition of ‘plain’ that we use 

in our ‘plain error’ analysis,” that is, “clear, or . . . 

“obvious.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

In this case, the district court revoked Beatty’s 

supervised release after finding that Beatty committed at least 

five supervised release violations, including testing positive 

for cocaine and absconding from supervision by failing to 

provide his probation officer with an updated address and phone 

number. The district court found that Beatty had committed a 

Grade C violation2

 2 Supervised release violations are graded as A, B, or C 

violations. Grade C violations are the least serious. U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual, § 7B1.1, p.s. 

and had a criminal history category of VI; 

together, these factors yielded an advisory range under the 
4

Chapter 7 policy statements of 8 to 14 months’ imprisonment. 

The district court stated that it had considered the Chapter 7 

policy statements, and sentenced Beatty to 24 months’

imprisonment. The district court stated that an upward 

departure was warranted so that Beatty could receive intensive 

substance abuse treatment. The district court also found that 

Beatty’s continued illegal drug use posed a threat to society 

and that Beatty showed a complete disregard for supervised 

release by absconding. 

We cannot say that Beatty’s sentence is unreasonable. 

It is undisputed that Beatty’s sentence falls within the 

applicable statutory maximum. The district court correctly 

calculated Beatty’s Guidelines policy statement range of 8 to 14 

months imprisonment and stated that it considered the Chapter 7 

policy statements. 

Moreover, the district court provided a proper basis 

for its upward departure, namely Beatty’s need for intensive 

substance abuse treatment and his absconding from supervised 

release.3

 3 We reject as meritless Beatty’s argument that the sentence 

is substantively unreasonable because Beatty may not be eligible 

for a specific Bureau of Prisons drug treatment program and 

because the court did not adequately consider community-based 

drug treatment.

 See Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440 (upholding 36 month 

sentence as substantively reasonable in part because of 
5

“Crudup’s need for substance abuse treatment”); U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual Ch. 7, Pt. A, introductory cmt. 3(b) (“[A]t 

revocation the court should sanction primarily the defendant's 

breach of trust”). Although the district court’s statement of 

reasons was abbreviated, we explained in Crudup that a district 

court need not provide as detailed a statement of reasons in 

support of a sentence revoking supervised release.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment 

revoking Beatty’s supervised release and imposing a twenty-four 

month prison term. 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