Court Opinion

ID: 9895141
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-04 21:00:38.708327+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:59.924144
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4343      Doc: 22         Filed: 11/03/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4343

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        DONOVAN SWIFT,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cr-00029-TSK-MJA-1)

        Submitted: October 31, 2023                                  Decided: November 3, 2023

        Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Elizabeth B. Gross, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE
        FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Sarah
        Wagner, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4343      Doc: 22         Filed: 11/03/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Donovan Swift appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release

        and sentencing him to 12 months of imprisonment, followed by 24 months of supervised

        release. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

        stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Swift’s

        sentence is plainly unreasonable.     Although informed of his right to file a pro se

        supplemental brief, Swift 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). Thus, we

        will “affirm a revocation sentence so long as it is within the prescribed statutory range and

        is not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Coston, 964 F.3d 289, 296 (4th Cir. 2020)

        (internal quotation marks omitted). When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is

        plainly unreasonable, we first determine “whether the sentence is unreasonable at all.” 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) factors,” id. at 297

        (internal quotation marks omitted), and the explanation indicates “that the court considered

        any potentially meritorious arguments raised by the parties,” United States v. Patterson,

        957 F.3d 426, 436-37 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “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

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4343       Doc: 22         Filed: 11/03/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        sentence imposed.” United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal

        quotation marks omitted). “A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if, in light

        of the totality of the circumstances, the court states an appropriate basis for concluding that

        the defendant should receive the sentence imposed.” Coston, 964 F.3d at 297 (internal

        quotation marks omitted). A revocation sentence falling within the recommended policy

        statement range is presumed substantively reasonable. See United States v. Gibbs, 897

        F.3d 199, 204 (4th Cir. 2018).

               We conclude that Swift’s revocation sentence is both procedurally and substantively

        reasonable. When imposing its sentence, the district court correctly calculated the policy

        statement range, considered the relevant statutory factors, imposed a sentence within the

        statutory maximum, gave sufficiently detailed reasons for its decision, and addressed

        Swift’s arguments for a lesser sentence. We also conclude that Swift fails to rebut the

        presumption of substantive reasonableness accorded to his within-policy-statement-range

        sentence. See id.

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

        This court requires that counsel inform Swift, in writing, of the right to petition the

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

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4343         Doc: 22    Filed: 11/03/2023   Pg: 4 of 4

              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

                                                  4