Court Opinion

ID: 9412216
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 21:01:39.408451+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:32.229734
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4668      Doc: 23         Filed: 07/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4668

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        KEITH CARTER, a/k/a Kevin Carter,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:22-cr-00078-CCE-1)

        Submitted: July 25, 2023                                          Decided: July 27, 2023

        Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: William S. Trivette, WILLIAM S. TRIVETTE, ATTORNEY AT LAW,
        PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. John McRae Alsup, Assistant United
        States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
        Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4668      Doc: 23          Filed: 07/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Keith Carter appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release

        and sentencing him to 15 months’ imprisonment, followed by 21 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 the

        sentence imposed is plainly unreasonable. The Government has not filed a response.

        Although informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Carter has not done so.

        We affirm.

               “We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is

        not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2017)

        (internal quotation marks omitted). “When reviewing whether a revocation sentence 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). “In making this determination, we

        follow generally the procedural and substantive considerations that we employ in our

        review of original sentences, with some necessary modifications to take into account the

        unique nature of supervised release revocation sentences.” Slappy, 872 F.3d at 207

        (cleaned up). Only if a sentence is either procedurally or substantively unreasonable “do

        we consider whether it is ‘plainly’ so, relying on the definition of ‘plain’ used in our plain

        error analysis—that is, clear or obvious.” Id. at 208 (cleaned up).

               “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.” United

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4668      Doc: 23         Filed: 07/27/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        States v. Coston, 964 F.3d 289, 297 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted);

        see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). “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 reasonable. United States v. Gibbs, 897 F.3d 199, 204

        (4th Cir. 2018).

               We conclude that Carter’s revocation sentence is both procedurally and

        substantively reasonable. When imposing Carter’s revocation sentence, the district court

        correctly calculated a policy statement range of 12 to 18 months’ imprisonment, considered

        the relevant statutory factors, imposed a sentence within the statutory maximum, gave

        sufficiently detailed reasons for its decision, and addressed Carter’s arguments for no

        additional incarceration.

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and have

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

        revocation judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Carter, in writing, of the right

        to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Carter 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 Carter.

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4668         Doc: 23    Filed: 07/27/2023   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