UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4335

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JONATHAN C. LONG,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, 

Chief District Judge. (4:10-cr-00067-RBS-TEM-1)

Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 20, 2016

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, 

Appellate Attorney, Suzanne V. Katchmar, Assistant Federal 

Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Amy 

Elizabeth Cross, Special Assistant United States Attorney, 

Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan C. Long appeals the district court’s order 

revoking supervised release and imposing 18 months’ imprisonment 

and 42 months’ supervised release. Long’s counsel has filed a 

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but 

questioning the reasonableness of the sentence and whether the 

district court erred by determining that Long had a Grade B 

violation. Long filed a pro se supplemental brief claiming that 

the sentence was unreasonable. The Government did not file a 

brief. 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). We first 

consider whether the sentence imposed is procedurally and 

substantively unreasonable, applying the same general 

considerations employed in our review of original criminal 

sentences. Id. at 438. Only if we find the sentence 

unreasonable will we consider whether it is “plainly” so. Id.

at 439.
3

A supervised release revocation sentence is procedurally 

reasonable if the district court considered the policy 

statements contained in Chapter Seven of the Sentencing 

Guidelines and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors applicable 

to revocation sentences. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-39; see also

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012). 

The district court must also provide a statement of reasons 

for the sentence imposed. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 

544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). “Regardless of whether the district 

court imposes an above, below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it 

must place on the record an ‘individualized assessment’ based on 

the particular facts of the case before it.” United States v. 

Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007)). “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, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

We find no error with the district court’s determination 

that Long had at least one Grade B violation. See United 

States v. Wynn, 786 F.3d 339, 343 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 

S. Ct. 276 (2015). We further conclude that the sentence was

both procedurally and substantively reasonable. 
4

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s order. This 

court requires that counsel inform Long, in writing, of the 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Long 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 Long. 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