UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4751

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

THOMAS JERMAINE ROBINSON, a/k/a Tony,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (4:05-cr-00667-TLW-1)

Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 3, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael A. Meetze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Robinson appeals his forty-month sentence

imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. On appeal, 

Robinson’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no 

meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether 

Robinson’s sentence is plainly unreasonable. Although notified 

of his right to do so, Robinson 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 

sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release if it is

within the applicable statutory maximum and not plainly 

unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th 

Cir. 2006). In determining whether a revocation sentence is 

plainly unreasonable, we first assess the sentence for 

procedural and substantive unreasonableness. Id. at 438-39. In 

this initial inquiry, we take a “more deferential appellate 

posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion 

than reasonableness review for guidelines sentences.” United 

States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). “In exercising its discretion . . ., 

a district court is guided by the Chapter Seven policy 
3

statements in the federal Guidelines manual, as well as the 

statutory factors applicable to revocation sentences under 18 

U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e).” Webb, 738 F.3d at 641.

A supervised release revocation sentence is 

procedurally reasonable if the district court properly 

calculates the Guidelines range and adequately explains the 

sentence after considering the Chapter Seven advisory policy 

statements and the appropriate § 3553(a) factors. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(e) (2012); United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 

(4th Cir. 2010). A revocation sentence is substantively 

reasonable if the district 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. 

Only if a sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable 

will we “then decide whether the sentence is plainly 

unreasonable.” Id. at 439. A sentence is plainly unreasonable 

if it is clearly or obviously unreasonable. Id.

In this case, the record reveals no procedural or 

substantive error by the district court. We thus conclude that 

Robinson’s sentence is not plainly unreasonable. 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 judgment revoking Robinson’s 

supervised release and the sentence the court imposed. This 
4

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

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Robinson 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 Robinson. 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