United States v. Kevlin Jackson

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 26-4003 Doc: 21 Filed: 06/24/2026 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 26-4003

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KEVLIN JERROD JACKSON, a/k/a Kevlin Jackson,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:21-cr-00091-1)

Submitted: June 18, 2026 Decided: June 24, 2026

Before GREGORY and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Wesley P. Page, Federal Public Defender, Clint Carte, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Joseph Franklin Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 26-4003 Doc: 21 Filed: 06/24/2026 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Kevlin Jerrod Jackson appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised

release and sentencing him to eight months’ imprisonment, with no additional term 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 the

reasonableness of Jackson’s sentence. The Government has not filed a response. Although

informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Jackson 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

(citation modified). 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 (citation modified).

“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: 26-4003 Doc: 21 Filed: 06/24/2026 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 Jackson’s revocation sentence is both procedurally and

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

correctly calculated a policy statement range of 4 to 10 months’ imprisonment, engaged

the parties in a discussion of the circumstances of the violations, and considered the

relevant statutory factors and the parties’ arguments. The court imposed a sentence within

the policy statement range and gave sufficiently detailed reasons for its decision that

balanced both the aggravating and mitigating factors of Jackson’s violations. Jackson’s

within-policy statement range sentence is presumptively reasonable, and Jackson has not

demonstrated any factors to overcome this presumption.

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 Jackson, in writing, of the

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

requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,

3 USCA4 Appeal: 26-4003 Doc: 21 Filed: 06/24/2026 Pg: 4 of 4

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 Jackson.

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