Court Opinion

ID: 9899539
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 21:00:54.132239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:32.611787
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4572      Doc: 24         Filed: 11/15/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4572

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        RAYMOND THOMAS,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:10-cr-00105-REP-7)

        Submitted: November 2, 2023                                 Decided: November 15, 2023

        Before RUSHING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, Appellate
        Attorney, Laura J. Koenig, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE
        FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Michael Calvin
        Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4572      Doc: 24         Filed: 11/15/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Raymond Thomas appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised

        release and sentencing him to 24 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 Thomas’ sentence is plainly unreasonable. Although

        notified of his right to do so, Thomas has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The

        Government elected to not file a response. 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

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

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4572      Doc: 24         Filed: 11/15/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (listing sentencing factors applicable to revocation proceedings). “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). When considering the substantive reasonableness of a sentence, although “we

        must consider the extent of [any] variance from the [policy statement] range,” we will not

        vacate a defendant’s sentence just because we conclude a different sentence might have

        been appropriate. United States v. McKinnie, 21 F.4th 283, 292 (4th Cir. 2021), cert.

        denied, 142 S. Ct. 2798 (2022). Instead, “variant sentences are generally reasonable when

        the reasons justifying the variance are tied to § 3553(a) and are plausible.” Id. (internal

        quotation marks omitted).

               We conclude that Thomas’ revocation sentence is procedurally and substantively

        reasonable. When imposing Thomas’ revocation sentence, the district court correctly

        calculated the advisory policy statement range, imposed a sentence within the statutory

        maximum, considered the relevant statutory factors, and gave sufficiently detailed reasons

        for its decision. Although Thomas argued that employers spoke highly of him, that his

        wife supported him, and that he accepted responsibility for his conduct, the district court

        stressed that Thomas had—on two prior occasions—violated the terms of his supervised

        release and been granted lenient revocation sentences.

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no

        meritorious grounds for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This

        court requires that counsel inform Thomas, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme

                                                    3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4572         Doc: 24      Filed: 11/15/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        Court of the United States for further review. If Thomas 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 Thomas.

               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