United States v. Keith Carter

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: July 27, 2023
• Docket: 22-4668
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4668 Doc: 23 Filed: 07/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4668

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KEITH CARTER, a/k/a Kevin Carter,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:22-cr-00078-CCE-1)

Submitted: July 25, 2023 Decided: July 27, 2023

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: William S. Trivette, WILLIAM S. TRIVETTE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. John McRae Alsup, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4668 Doc: 23 Filed: 07/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Keith Carter appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release

and sentencing him to 15 months’ imprisonment, followed by 21 months 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 imposed is plainly unreasonable. The Government has not filed a response.

Although informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Carter has not done so.

We affirm.

“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). “In making this determination, we

follow generally the procedural and substantive considerations that we employ in our

review of original sentences, with some necessary modifications to take into account the

unique nature of supervised release revocation sentences.” Slappy, 872 F.3d at 207

(cleaned up). Only if a sentence is either procedurally or substantively unreasonable “do

we consider whether it is ‘plainly’ so, relying on the definition of ‘plain’ used in our plain

error analysis—that is, clear or obvious.” Id. at 208 (cleaned up).

“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

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4668 Doc: 23 Filed: 07/27/2023 Pg: 3 of 4

States v. Coston, 964 F.3d 289, 297 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted);

see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). “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 (internal

quotation marks omitted). A revocation sentence falling within the recommended policy

statement range is presumed reasonable. United States v. Gibbs, 897 F.3d 199, 204

(4th Cir. 2018).

We conclude that Carter’s revocation sentence is both procedurally and

substantively reasonable. When imposing Carter’s revocation sentence, the district court

correctly calculated a policy statement range of 12 to 18 months’ imprisonment, considered

the relevant statutory factors, imposed a sentence within the statutory maximum, gave

sufficiently detailed reasons for its decision, and addressed Carter’s arguments for no

additional incarceration.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and have

found no meritorious grounds for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

revocation judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Carter, in writing, of the right

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

3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4668 Doc: 23 Filed: 07/27/2023 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