UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-5093

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DACARRUS VANCHELL STATON,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, 

Chief District Judge. (5:04-cr-00153-FL-1)

Submitted: March 30, 2011 Decided: April 5, 2011

Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. George E.B. Holding, United States Attorney, 

Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United 

States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dacarrus Staton appeals the district court’s order 

revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twentyfour months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Staton contends that the 

sentence is plainly unreasonable. Finding no reversible error, 

we affirm.

A district court has broad discretion to impose a 

sentence upon revoking a defendant’s supervised release. United 

States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). We will 

affirm unless the sentence is “plainly unreasonable” in light of 

the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. United 

States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006).

In reviewing the sentence imposed by the district 

court, we first assess whether the sentence is unreasonable, 

“follow[ing] generally the procedural and substantive 

considerations that we employ in our review of original 

sentences.” Id. at 438. A sentence is procedurally reasonable 

if the district court has considered the policy statements 

contained in chapter seven of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 

Manual (“USSG”) and the applicable § 3553(a) factors and has 

explained adequately the sentence chosen. Id. at 439. A court 

need not, however, explain a revocation sentence in as much 

detail as is required upon imposition of the original sentence. 

Id. A sentence is substantively reasonable if the district 
3

court states a proper basis for its imposition of a sentence up 

to the statutory maximum. Id. at 440. If, after considering 

the above, we determine that the sentence is not unreasonable, 

we will affirm. Id. at 439.

We hold that the district court’s imposition of a 

twenty-four month term of imprisonment was not unreasonable. 

Procedurally, the district court adequately explained its chosen 

sentence and considered the § 3553(a) factors and USSG chapter 

seven policy statements. Substantively, the district court 

stated a proper basis and sentenced Staton within the statutory 

maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a) (2006). Because we conclude 

that Staton’s sentence was not unreasonable, we need not 

consider whether it was plainly so.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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