United States v. Deshawn Miles

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-4480 Doc: 37 Filed: 07/15/2026 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-4480

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DESHAWN MILES, a/k/a Now Later,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (3:22-cr-00240-KDB-SCR-1)

Submitted: June 30, 2026 Decided: July 15, 2026

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Paul K. Sun, Jr., Ellis & Winters LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Russ Ferguson, United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-4480 Doc: 37 Filed: 07/15/2026 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Deshawn Miles appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised

release, sentencing him to 12 months’ imprisonment to be followed by 24 months’

supervised release, and imposing the district’s standard discretionary conditions of

supervised release. Miles argues that the district court did not adequately explain its

imposition of the additional supervised release term and the accompanying discretionary

conditions. We affirm.

“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of

supervised release.” United States v. Patterson, 957 F.3d 426, 436 (4th Cir. 2020). We

“will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly

unreasonable.” Id. Where, as here, the sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum,

“we first examine whether the sentence was unreasonable at all.” United States v. Amin,

85 F.4th 727, 739 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Only if we find the

sentence unreasonable must we decide whether it is plainly so.” Id. (internal quotation

marks omitted).

“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) (listing applicable factors). “Although 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.”

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4480 Doc: 37 Filed: 07/15/2026 Pg: 3 of 4

United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 208 (4th Cir. 2017) (citation modified). The district

court must, at a minimum, explain the sentence sufficiently to permit meaningful appellate

review with the “assurance that the sentencing court considered the applicable sentencing

factors with regard to the particular defendant before it.” United States v. Gibbs, 897 F.3d

199, 204 (4th Cir. 2018) (citation modified).

Additionally, “a sentencing court’s duty to provide an explanation for the sentence

imposed also requires that the court explain any [discretionary] conditions of supervised

release.” United States v. McMiller, 954 F.3d 670, 676 (4th Cir. 2020). “The degree of

explanation required—the appropriateness of brevity or length, conciseness or detail, when

to write, what to say—varies with the complexity of a given case.” United States v. Boyd,

5 F.4th 550, 557 (4th Cir. 2021) (citation modified). In that vein, a court must provide a

reason for assigning a discretionary condition of supervised release unless (1) the reason is

“self-evident,” (2) the defendant did not raise a nonfrivolous objection to the condition,

and (3) the court offered an adequate explanation for the sentence as a whole. Id. at 559

(internal quotation marks omitted).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court adequately

explained its imposition of the additional term of supervised release and the discretionary

conditions. The court stated that the supervised release terms and conditions would help

Miles adjust to life outside of prison and prevent him from reoffending, indicating that it

had considered the need to deter Miles, provide for his rehabilitation, and protect the public.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B), (C), (D). The court further explained that an additional

term of supervised release was appropriate for the same reasons that the original term was

3 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4480 Doc: 37 Filed: 07/15/2026 Pg: 4 of 4

imposed. Although the court did not detail those reasons, we conclude that they were not

necessary to the court’s explanation, which focused on the fact that Miles had effectively

avoided serving his original term of supervised release by lying about his residence and

thereby eluding supervision. Finally, Miles did not object to the imposition of the district’s

standard discretionary conditions, and the reasons for their imposition were self-evident.

Accordingly, we affirm the revocation 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