Court Opinion

ID: 9364984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 21:00:19.137792+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:41.869933
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4043      Doc: 33         Filed: 01/19/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4043

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        TERRY TERRELL PERRY,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:16-cr-00026-M-1)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 19, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Sharon Leigh Smith, UNTI & SMITH, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
        Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
        UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4043      Doc: 33         Filed: 01/19/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Terry Terrell Perry appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised

        release and sentencing him to 18 months’ imprisonment. 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 Perry’s sentence is procedurally reasonable because the

        court failed to address all of Perry’s arguments and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and

        adequately explain the sentence. The Government has declined to file a brief. Although

        notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Perry 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). “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). “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 States v. Coston, 964 F.3d 289, 297 (4th Cir. 2020)

        (internal quotation marks omitted); see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). “[A]lthough the court need

        not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when

        imposing a post-conviction sentence, it still must provide a statement of reasons for the

        sentence imposed.” Slappy, 872 F.3d at 208 (cleaned up). The district court must, at a

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4043       Doc: 33         Filed: 01/19/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        minimum, explain the sentence sufficiently to permit meaningful appellate review “with

        the assurance that the court considered any potentially meritorious arguments raised by

        [the defendant] with regard to his sentencing.” United States v. Gibbs, 897 F.3d 199, 205

        (4th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up).

               A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court states a proper

        basis for concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the

        statutory maximum. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 440 (4th Cir. 2006). Only if

        a sentence is either procedurally or substantively unreasonable is a determination then

        made as to whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. United States v. Moulden, 478

        F.3d 652, 656-57 (4th Cir. 2007).

               We conclude that Perry’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable.

        The district court imposed a within-policy-statement-range sentence, considered the

        relevant statutory factors, and gave sufficiently detailed reasons for its decision.

        Specifically, the court recognized Perry’s history as a good employee and emphasized that,

        while Perry’s financial pressures did not excuse his conduct, they did mitigate it.

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

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

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

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

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4043         Doc: 33    Filed: 01/19/2023   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