UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4371

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

OCTAVIUS FRYAR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard,

Senior District Judge. (7:11-cr-00146-H-1)

Submitted: November 27, 2012 Decided: December 4, 2012

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer 

P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Octavius Fryar appeals the district court’s judgment 

finding he violated his conditions of supervised release, 

revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twentyfour months in prison. Fryar argues only that his sentence is 

substantively unreasonable. Finding no error, we affirm.

This court will affirm a sentence imposed after 

revocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed 

statutory range and is not plainly unreasonable. United States 

v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438-40 (4th Cir. 2006). While a 

district court must consider the Chapter Seven policy 

statements, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Ch. 7, Pt. B, and 

the statutory requirements and factors applicable to revocation 

sentences under 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e) (West 2000 & 

Supp. 2012), the district court ultimately has broad discretion 

to revoke supervised release and impose a term of imprisonment 

up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-39. 

A supervised release revocation sentence is 

procedurally reasonable if the district court considered the 

Chapter 7 advisory policy statements and the § 3553(a) factors 

it is permitted to consider in a supervised release revocation 

case. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439-40. 

And although the district court need not explain the reasons for 

imposing a revocation sentence in as much detail as when it 
3

imposes an original sentence, it “still must provide a statement 

of reasons for the sentence imposed.” United States v. 

Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). A revocation 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. Only if a 

sentence is found procedurally or substantively unreasonable 

will this court “then decide whether the sentence is plainly 

unreasonable.” Id. at 439 (emphasis omitted). We have reviewed 

the record and have considered the parties’ arguments and

discern no sentencing error. We therefore conclude that Fryar’s 

sentence is not plainly unreasonable. 

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 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED