UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-4078

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

THOMAS BLAKE SILER,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:04-cr-00488-TDS-1)

Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 27, 2018

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein, Assistant Federal Public 

Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Assistant United States Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Blake Siler appeals the district court’s order revoking his supervised 

release and imposing a seven-month term of imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no 

meritorious issues for appeal, but generally questioning whether Siler’s sentence is 

plainly unreasonable. Although informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, 

Siler has not done so. 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). This 

court “will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not 

plainly unreasonable.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Reasonableness review of 

a revocation sentence involves us first determining “whether the sentence imposed is 

procedurally or substantively unreasonable.” Id. Only when the sentence is unreasonable 

will we determine “whether it is plainly so.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

“A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court adequately 

explains the chosen sentence after considering the Sentencing Guidelines’ nonbinding 

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). We will uphold a 

revocation sentence as substantively reasonable “if the court sufficiently states a proper 

basis for its conclusion that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed.” Id. 

(alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).
3

Upon review of the record, we conclude the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in imposing a seven-month term of imprisonment after finding Siler committed 

the supervised release violations alleged in the revocation petition. This sentence is 

within both the statutory maximum of 60 months and the advisory policy statement range 

of 4 to 10 months, which was calculated based on the greatest of the alleged violations—

a Grade B violation—coupled with Siler’s prior assignment to criminal history category

I. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 7B1.4(a), p.s (2004). Further, the court considered 

the relevant § 3553(a) factors, defense counsel’s arguments in mitigation, and adequately 

stated permissible reasons for the sentence. Finally, Siler does not advance—and our

review of the record did not reveal—any basis for overcoming the presumption of 

substantive reasonableness we afford Siler’s within-policy statement range sentence.

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 revocation 

judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Siler, in writing, of the right to petition 

the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Siler 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 Siler. 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