United States v. Devontea Fonteneau

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-4649 Doc: 19 Filed: 07/27/2026 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-4649

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DEVONTEA M. FONTENEAU,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (6:24-cr-00688-DCC-1)

Submitted: July 23, 2026 Decided: July 27, 2026

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Kimberly H. Albro, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Carrie Fisher Sherard, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-4649 Doc: 19 Filed: 07/27/2026 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Devontea M. Fonteneau appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his term of

supervised release and sentencing him to 24 months in prison. On appeal, Fonteneau’s

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 broadly questioning the reasonableness of

Fonteneau’s sentence. Although notified of his right to do so, Fonteneau has not filed a

pro se supplemental brief. The Government has declined to file a response. For the reasons

that follow, 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). “This

Court 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, procedurally

or substantively.” 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). “A

revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if, in light of the totality of the

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4649 Doc: 19 Filed: 07/27/2026 Pg: 3 of 4

circumstances, the court states an appropriate basis for concluding that the defendant

should receive the sentence imposed.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, the district court correctly determined that the Guidelines recommended

imposing a 24-month sentence and running it consecutively to any other criminal sentence.

Fonteneau, whose supervision violations resulted in then-pending state criminal charges,

asked that his revocation sentence be imposed concurrently with any forthcoming state

sentence. The court rejected this request, citing, among other things, the seriousness of

Fonteneau’s violations and the need for deterrence and incapacitation. Based on our review

of the record, we conclude that Fonteneau’s revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable.

In addition, we discern nothing in the record to rebut the presumption of substantive

reasonableness accorded to Fonteneau’s within-policy-statement-range sentence. See

United States v. Gibbs, 897 F.3d 199, 204 (4th Cir. 2018).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Fonteneau’s revocation

judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Fonteneau, in writing, of the right to

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Fonteneau 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 Fonteneau.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4649 Doc: 19 Filed: 07/27/2026 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