United States v. Brian Griffey

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-4154 Doc: 21 Filed: 03/03/2026 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-4154

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BRIAN K. GRIFFEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cr-00058-TSK-MJA-1)

Submitted: February 26, 2026 Decided: March 3, 2026

Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Tracy Weese, Shepherdstown, West Virginia, for Appellant. William Rhee, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 25-4154 Doc: 21 Filed: 03/03/2026 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Brian K. Griffey admitted to violating the terms of his supervised release by failing

to follow his probation officer’s instructions, failing to participate in a substance abuse

treatment program, committing new criminal conduct, and using and possessing controlled

substances. The district court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 24

months’ imprisonment with no additional supervised release to follow. Griffey’s counsel

has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), conceding that there

are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the 24-month sentence

imposed by the district court is plainly unreasonable. Although notified of his right to do

so, Griffey has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm the district court’s

revocation judgment.

“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) (citation

modified). In determining whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, “we first

must determine whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable.” Id.

In so doing, we are guided by “the same procedural and substantive considerations that

guide our review of original sentences,” but we take “a more deferential appellate posture

than we do when reviewing original sentences.” United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370,

373 (4th Cir. 2015) (citation modified).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4154 Doc: 21 Filed: 03/03/2026 Pg: 3 of 4

“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) (citation modified); see 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 (citation modified). We presume that a sentence within

the applicable revocation policy statement range is reasonable. Padgett, 788 F.3d at 373.

Our review of the record reveals that Griffey’s sentence is reasonable. The district

court heard arguments from counsel for Griffey and the Government, and the court listened

to Griffey’s allocution. The court further considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors and

explained that the sentence was necessary because Griffey had breached the court’s trust

on multiple occasions by committing multiple violations. The court also emphasized the

need for deterrence and protecting the public. Finally, we conclude that Griffey fails to

rebut the presumption of substantive reasonableness accorded his sentence within the

policy statement range.

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

and, at this juncture, deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. This court requires that counsel

inform Griffey, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States

for further review. If Griffey requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such

3 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4154 Doc: 21 Filed: 03/03/2026 Pg: 4 of 4

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

Griffey.

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