UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4955

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

STEVEN REED,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:09-cr-00087-RJC-1)

Submitted: April 18, 2012 Decided: May 10, 2012

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henderson Hill, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, 

INC., Ann L. Hester, Assistant Federal Defender, Charlotte, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States 

Attorney, Melissa L. Rikard, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Steven Reed appeals the sentence of twenty-four 

months’ imprisonment imposed upon revocation of supervised 

release. Reed argues that the sentence is procedurally plainly 

unreasonable because the district court failed to address his 

non-frivolous arguments for a within-Guidelines sentence. The 

Government responds that the sentence is not plainly 

unreasonable. Finding no error, we affirm.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (West 2000 & Supp. 2011), 

the Government sought to revoke Reed’s term of supervised 

release based on four violations of its conditions. The 

district court determined that the violations of supervision 

were Grade C violations. Because Reed’s criminal history placed 

him in Category VI, the applicable Guidelines range was eight to 

fourteen months’ imprisonment. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 

Manual § 7B1.4, p.s. (2010). 

Reed requested a within-Guidelines sentence, noting 

that he had completed more than two years of his three-year term 

of supervised release, that he had done well under supervision, 

that he maintained employment for a period of time, that he 

participated in drug treatment classes and was a leader in those

classes, and that during his imprisonment pending revocation, he 

had completed another drug treatment program. The district 
3

court revoked supervised release and imposed a variant sentence 

of twenty-four months’ imprisonment.* 

In reviewing a sentence imposed after revocation of 

supervised release, this court “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 omitted). 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). A supervised release revocation sentence is 

procedurally reasonable if the district court considered Chapter 

Seven’s advisory policy statement range and the 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2011) factors applicable to 

supervised release revocation. See Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547; 

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). “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 

 * The statutory maximum term was twenty-four months’ 

imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (2006); 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(3) 

(2006); 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006).
4

statement of reasons for the sentence imposed.” Thompson, 595 

F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks omitted).

If the sentence is unreasonable, the inquiry proceeds 

to the second step of the analysis — determining whether the 

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

For a sentence to be plainly unreasonable, “it must run afoul of 

clearly settled law.” Thompson, 595 F.3d at 548. 

Here, the district court explicitly considered Reed’s 

violations of the law, his drug use, his violations of the terms 

of supervision, his difficulty complying with supervision, his 

criminal history, the need to protect the public, and the need 

for deterrence. The district court permissibly concluded that a 

Guidelines sentence would be inadequate and thus imposed a 

sentence above the Guidelines range. A review of the record 

confirms that the district court sufficiently explained the

selected sentence and addressed Reed’s arguments for a lesser 

sentence. 

We therefore conclude that the sentence is not 

procedurally unreasonable, much less plainly so, and we affirm 

the judgment of the district court. 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