UNITED STATES v. SMITH (2019)

Ricky Jerome Smith appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 24 months’ imprisonment. Smith argues on appeal that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release. We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation 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 substantively reasonable if the court sufficiently states a proper basis for its conclusion that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2017) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). We presume that a revocation sentence within the policy statement range of Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines is substantively reasonable. United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015).

Applying these standards, and after reviewing the sentencing transcripts and the materials submitted on appeal, we find that Smith’s within-range sentence is not unreasonable, much less plainly so. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.