UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4641

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TREVOR D. JAMES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (6:09-cr-00265-GRA-1)

Submitted: January 23, 2014 Decided: January 27, 2014

Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. William Jacob Watkins, Jr., 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Trevor James pled guilty to making a false statement 

to a federal agent and was sentenced in 2009 to five years of 

probation. In August 2013, the district court revoked James’ 

probation and sentenced him to fourteen months of imprisonment 

after James admitted to violating a condition of his probation.

On appeal, James’ attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the 

revocation sentence is reasonable. James was informed of his 

right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done 

so. Finding no error, we affirm.

Upon finding a probation violation, the district court 

may revoke probation and resentence the defendant to any 

sentence within the statutory maximum for the original offense. 

18 U.S.C. § 3565(a) (2012); United States v. Schaefer, 120 F.3d 

505, 507 (4th Cir. 1997). “[W]e review probation revocation 

sentences, like supervised release revocation sentences, to 

determine if they are plainly unreasonable.” United States v. 

Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). We first assess the 

sentence for unreasonableness, “follow[ing] generally the 

procedural and substantive considerations that we employ in our 

review of original sentences.” United States v. Crudup, 461 

F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). Only if we determine that a 

sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable will we 
3

“decide whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable.” Id. at 

439.

Although a district court must consider the policy 

statements in Chapter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines along 

with the statutory requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012), 

“‘the court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke its 

previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the 

statutory maximum.’” Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439 (quoting United 

States v. Lewis, 424 F.3d 239, 244 (2d Cir. 2005)) (internal 

quotation marks omitted); see also Moulden, 478 F.3d at 656–57. 

In addition, “[t]he court must provide a statement of reasons 

for the sentence imposed, as with the typical sentencing 

procedure, but this statement ‘need not be as specific as has 

been required’” for original sentences. Moulden, 478 F.3d at 

657 (quoting Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438). We have thoroughly 

reviewed the record and conclude that the sentence imposed is 

both procedurally and substantively reasonable; it follows, 

therefore, that the sentence is not plainly unreasonable.

We have examined the entire record in accordance with 

the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues 

for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. This court requires that counsel inform James, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If James requests that a 
4

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 James. 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