**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 4880** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. LUCAS CASTE

- LOPEZ, a/k/a Hector Villasenor

- Rodriguez, a/k/a Doroteo Malacara

- Arango , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington
. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. ( 5:08

- cr - 00115

- F

- 1 )

Submitted : April 1, 2010 Decided: May 24 , 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and W ILKINSON and GREGORY , Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by un published per curiam opinion
. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Hold ing, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Lucas Caste

- Lopez appeals the di strict court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him t o eighteen months’ imprisonment. Caste

- Lopez argues that his sentence is plainly unreasonable because the district court failed to consider the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (200 6) factors and make an individualized assessment based on the facts before it. We agree, and vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings.
Because Caste

- Lopez has not preserved this issue, it is subject to plain error review. Un der the plain error standard, the defendant must show that an error was made, is plain, and affects the defendant’s substantial rights. United States v. Massenburg , 564 F.3d 337, 342

- 43 (4th Cir. 2009). This court will affirm a sentence imposed after

re vocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed statutory range and not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup , 461 F.3d 433, 437

- 39 (4th Cir. 2006). In making this determination, we first consider whether the sentence is unreasonabl e. Id. at 438. “This initial inquiry 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 ) (quoting Crudup , 461 F.3d at 439).3 The district court’s discretion is not unlimited. United States v. Thompson , 595 F.3d 544, 54 7 (4th Cir. 2010)
. The district court commits procedural error by failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence and to provide an individualized assessment based on the facts
. Gall v. United
States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (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 54 7 (quoting Moulden , 478 F.3d at 657).
T he district court procedurally erred when it failed to provide an individual ized assessment of the relevant facts in impos ing sentence . Other than stating that it “considered the policies and statements in revocation contained in Chapter 7 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines,” the district court provide d no explanation for its eighteen

- month sentence
. Moreover, the court made no mention of the applicable § 3553(a) factors and did not discuss Caste

- Lopez’s personal history, his argument in favor of a concurrent sentence, or the Government’s argument in favor of a consecutive sentence. Upon finding this procedural error, our next step under Crudup is to determine whether the sentence is “plainly unreasonable,” under the definition of “plain” used in plain

- error analysis. Crudup , 461 F.3d at 439. “For a sentence4 to be plainly unreasonable . . . it must run afoul of clearly

s ettled law.” Thompson , 595 F.3d at 548. “[T]he district court’s obligation to provide some basis for appellate review when imposing a revocation sentence, however minimal that basis may be, has been settled in this Circuit since at least Moulden .” Id. Accordingly, the district
court failed to provide any reasons for its sentence in disregard of clear precedent and was thus plainly unreasonable. This error, when considered with the district court’s incorrect calculation of the Guidelines range, *

* U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual , § 7B1.4(a), p.s., provides a sentencing range of eight to fourteen mon ths for a Grade B violation and a category III criminal history, rather than twelve to eighteen months, as stated by the district court. aff ected
Caste

- Lopez’s substantial rights. Under the plain error standard, Caste

- Lopez has the burden of showing that the procedural errors had a prejudicial effect on the sentence imposed. See Puckett v. United States , 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1433 n.4 (2009). C o nsidering that the district court sentenced
Caste

- Lopez at the highest end of what it thought to be the Guidelines range, we conclude a non - speculative basis exists to infer prejudice that “ seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v.5 Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 736 (1993) (discussing fourth prong of plain error test). We therefore vacate Caste

- Lopez’s sentence an d remand for further proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and l egal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED