UN PUBLISHED
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 1 3 , 2019 Decided: June 17, 2019

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

.

Affirmed by un published 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James Rhett Miller appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a se ntence of 24 months of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 a dvised 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 se ntence 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 sen tence 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 reasonab le 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 (internal3 quotation marks omitted). Only if a sentence is either procedurally or substantively unreasonabl e 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 t he district court’s explanation of Miller’s within

- policy

statement

- range sentence, in discu ssing Miller ’s repeated noncompliance with the terms of his supervised release, satisfi es 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)). W e 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 t hat 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 th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED