Court Opinion

ID: 9914373
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-30 21:01:14.510207+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:12:03.345904
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4232      Doc: 30         Filed: 12/29/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4232

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ARTHUR LOGAN, JR.,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:20-cr-00124-MOC-DSC-1)

        Submitted: October 20, 2023                                 Decided: December 29, 2023

        Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: John G. Baker, Federal Public Defender, Jared P. Martin, Assistant Federal
        Public Defender, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC.,
        Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4232      Doc: 30         Filed: 12/29/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Arthur Logan, Jr., appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his term of

        supervised release and imposing a 10-month term of imprisonment and 12 months of

        additional supervision. On appeal, Logan’s 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 the adequacy of the court’s sentencing explanation and the substantive

        reasonableness of Logan’s sentence. Although notified of his right to do so, Logan has not

        filed a pro se supplemental brief. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

               “A district court has broad . . . discretion in fashioning a sentence upon revocation

        of a defendant’s term of supervised release.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 206

        (4th Cir. 2017). “We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum

        and is not plainly unreasonable.” Id. at 207 (internal quotation marks omitted). “To

        consider whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we first must determine

        whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable.” Id. Even if a

        revocation sentence is unreasonable, we will reverse only if it is “plainly so.” Id. at 208

        (internal quotation marks omitted).

               A district court imposes a procedurally reasonable sentence by “considering the

        Sentencing Guidelines’ nonbinding Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable 18

        U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,” “adequately explain[ing] the chosen sentence,” and

        “meaningfully respond[ing] to the parties’ nonfrivolous arguments” for a different

        sentence.   Id. at 207 (footnotes omitted).      And a court complies with substantive

        reasonableness requirements by “sufficiently stat[ing] a proper basis for its conclusion that

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4232      Doc: 30         Filed: 12/29/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        the defendant should receive the sentence imposed.”        Id. (internal quotation marks

        omitted).

               We conclude that the district court’s sentencing explanation, “though brief, was

        legally sufficient.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). While the court did

        not expressly discuss the § 3553(a) factors, the court repeatedly emphasized the need for

        Logan—who violated his supervision by physically assaulting his ex-girlfriend—to

        participate in an anger management program, thereby demonstrating that the court had

        appropriately considered the pertinent factors. See United States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513,

        521 (4th Cir. 2017). Moreover, the Government and Logan jointly requested the sentence

        the court imposed, meaning that there were no sentencing disputes for the court to address.

        Finally, we discern nothing in the record to rebut the presumption of substantive

        reasonableness accorded to Logan’s within-policy-statement-range sentence.          United

        States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015).

               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 Logan, in writing, of the right to petition the

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

                                                    3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4232         Doc: 30    Filed: 12/29/2023   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