Court Opinion

ID: 9940289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-13 21:00:32.735969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:42.888648
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4160      Doc: 21         Filed: 02/12/2024     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4160

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        JAMES MICHAEL CONLEY,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:15-cr-00076-TSK-MJA-1)

        Submitted: January 31, 2024                                  Decided: February 12, 2024

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Scott C. Brown, SCOTT C. BROWN LAW OFFICE, Wheeling, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-4160      Doc: 21         Filed: 02/12/2024     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               James Michael Conley appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised

        release and sentencing him to 18 months’ imprisonment without an additional term 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 is plainly unreasonable. The Government has declined to file a brief.

        Although notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Conley 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.” Slappy, 872 F.3d at 207 (footnote omitted); see 18 U.S.C.

        § 3583(e). A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the 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). “A court

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

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4160       Doc: 21         Filed: 02/12/2024      Pg: 3 of 4

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

        sentence imposed.” Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks omitted). 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). 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. See United States v.

        McKinnie, 21 F.4th 283, 292 (4th Cir. 2021).

               We conclude that Conley’s sentence is both procedurally and substantively

        reasonable.   Although the district court imposed a sentence above the Sentencing

        Guidelines’ policy statement range, it considered the relevant statutory factors and gave

        sufficiently detailed reasons for the imposed sentence, expressly noting Conley’s repeated

        inability to abide by the conditions of his supervised release and breach of the court’s trust.

               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 Conley, in writing, of the right to petition the

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

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4160         Doc: 21    Filed: 02/12/2024   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