UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-4881

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES RHETT MILLER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:07-cr-00936-HMH-1)

Submitted: June 13, 2019 Decided: June 17, 2019

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan M. Milling, MILLING LAW FIRM, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellant. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Rhett Miller appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised 

release and imposing a sentence of 24 months of imprisonment. Appellate counsel has 

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there 

are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the reasonableness of Miller’s 

sentence. Although advised of his right to do so, Miller has not filed a pro se 

supplemental 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). 

“When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, [we] must first 

determine whether it is unreasonable at all.” United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 

546 (4th Cir. 2010). A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court 

adequately explains the sentence after considering the Chapter Seven policy statements 

and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors. United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 

202, 207 (4th Cir. 2017); see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012). A revocation sentence is 

substantively reasonable if the court states a proper basis for concluding that the 

defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 

461 F.3d at 440. “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 
3

quotation marks omitted). Only if a sentence is either procedurally or substantively 

unreasonable is a determination then made as to whether the sentence 

is plainly unreasonable. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007).

We conclude that the district court’s explanation of Miller’s within-policystatement-range sentence, in discussing Miller’s repeated noncompliance with the terms 

of his supervised release, satisfies this standard. See Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (“[A] 

district court’s reasons for imposing a within-range sentence may be clear from context 

including the court’s statements to the defendant throughout the sentencing hearing.” 

(internal citations omitted)). We find Miller’s sentence is both procedurally and 

substantively reasonable. 

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 judgment of the 

district court. This court requires that counsel inform Miller, in writing, of the right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Miller 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 Miller. 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