United States v. Londel Sanders

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: February 25, 2025
• Docket: 24-4550
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4550 Doc: 21 Filed: 02/25/2025 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4550

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LONDEL DWIGHT SANDERS, a/k/a Lonnie,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:20-cr-00015-1)

Submitted: February 20, 2025 Decided: February 25, 2025

Before AGEE, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Shawn A. Morgan, STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC, Bridgeport, West Virginia, for Appellant. Stephanie S. Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Huntington, West Virginia for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4550 Doc: 21 Filed: 02/25/2025 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Londel Dwight Sanders pleaded guilty to four counts of distribution of heroin and

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). In 2021, the district court sentenced

Sanders to 14 months of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release.

In 2023, the district court revoked Sanders’s supervised release and sentenced him to 12

months of imprisonment followed by 18 months of supervised release. The court ordered

Sanders to serve the first six months of his supervised release at a community confinement

center. When Sanders was terminated from the community confinement center for failing

to follow the rules prior to the expiration of the six-month term, the court again revoked

Sanders’s supervised release. The court sentenced Sanders to 12 months of imprisonment

with no further term of supervised release.

Sanders now appeals, and counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but

questioning whether the revocation sentence is reasonable. Sanders was advised of his

right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. 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. Before deciding “whether a revocation sentence is plainly

unreasonable, [we] must first determine whether the sentence is procedurally or

substantively unreasonable,” id., evaluating “the same procedural and substantive

considerations that guide our review of original sentences” but taking “a more deferential

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4550 Doc: 21 Filed: 02/25/2025 Pg: 3 of 4

appellate posture than we do when reviewing original sentences,” United States v. Padgett,

788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). If a

revocation sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable, we will not proceed

to consider “whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable—that is, whether the

unreasonableness is clear or obvious.” Patterson, 957 F.3d at 437 (internal quotation marks

omitted).

“A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court adequately

explains the chosen sentence after considering the Chapter Seven policy statement range

and the applicable [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) sentencing factors.” Id. at 436; see 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(e) (listing applicable factors). “[A]lthough the court need not be as detailed or

specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a

postconviction sentence, it still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence

imposed.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 208 (4th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up). “A

sentence is substantively reasonable if the totality of the circumstances indicates that the

court had a proper basis for its conclusion that the defendant should receive the sentence

imposed.” United States v. Amin, 85 F.4th 727, 740 (4th Cir. 2023).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the sentence is not plainly

unreasonable. The district court properly calculated the policy statement range, provided

the parties an opportunity to be heard, responded to the parties’ sentencing arguments, and

sufficiently explained the chosen sentence. Based on the court’s explanation for the

sentence, the sentence is also substantively reasonable.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4550 Doc: 21 Filed: 02/25/2025 Pg: 4 of 4

As counsel has notified Sanders of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the

United States for further review, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and 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