UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4654

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROLANDER YARBAROU GRICE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

District Judge. (3:03-cr-00013-FDW-1)

Submitted: April 19, 2011 Decided: May 3, 2011

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

C. Dennis Gibson, DENNIS GIBSON LAW, PLLC, Ridgecrest, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Rolander Yarbarou Grice was sentenced to a twelve 

month and one day term of imprisonment following the revocation 

of his supervised release. Grice’s counsel filed a brief 

pursuant to Anders v. California

We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of 

supervised release if it is not plainly unreasonable. United 

States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010). The 

first step in this review requires a determination of whether 

the sentence is unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 

433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). “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) (quoting Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439) (applying 

“plainly unreasonable” standard of review for probation 

revocation). Only if the sentence is procedurally or 

substantively unreasonable does the inquiry proceed to the 

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating 

his opinion that there are no meritorious issue for appeal but

questioning whether Grice’s sentence was reasonable. Grice was 

notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but 

has not filed a brief. The Government has declined to file a 

responsive brief. We affirm.
3

second step of the analysis to determine whether the sentence is 

plainly unreasonable. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-39.

A supervised release revocation sentence is 

procedurally reasonable if the district court considered the 

advisory policy statement range based upon Chapter Seven of the 

Sentencing Guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors applicable to 

supervised release revocation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2006); 

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-40. A sentence is substantively 

reasonable if the district court stated a proper basis for 

concluding the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up 

to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. “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

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

This court requires that counsel inform Grice, in writing, of 

the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Grice requests that a petition be filed, but 

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then 

, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal 

quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record leads us to 

conclude that the sentence imposed after Grice’s supervised 

release revocation was not plainly unreasonable.
4

counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Grice.

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