United States v. Raymond Thomas

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: November 15, 2023
• Docket: 22-4572
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4572 Doc: 24 Filed: 11/15/2023 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4572

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RAYMOND THOMAS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:10-cr-00105-REP-7)

Submitted: November 2, 2023 Decided: November 15, 2023

Before RUSHING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, Appellate Attorney, Laura J. Koenig, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Michael Calvin Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4572 Doc: 24 Filed: 11/15/2023 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Thomas appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised

release and sentencing him to 24 months’ imprisonment. 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 Thomas’ sentence is plainly unreasonable. Although

notified of his right to do so, Thomas has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The

Government elected to not file a response. 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

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

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4572 Doc: 24 Filed: 11/15/2023 Pg: 3 of 4

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (listing sentencing factors applicable to revocation proceedings). “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). When considering the substantive reasonableness of a sentence, although “we

must consider the extent of [any] variance from the [policy statement] range,” we will not

vacate a defendant’s sentence just because we conclude a different sentence might have

been appropriate. United States v. McKinnie, 21 F.4th 283, 292 (4th Cir. 2021), cert.

denied, 142 S. Ct. 2798 (2022). Instead, “variant sentences are generally reasonable when

the reasons justifying the variance are tied to § 3553(a) and are plausible.” Id. (internal

quotation marks omitted).

We conclude that Thomas’ revocation sentence is procedurally and substantively

reasonable. When imposing Thomas’ revocation sentence, the district court correctly

calculated the advisory policy statement range, imposed a sentence within the statutory

maximum, considered the relevant statutory factors, and gave sufficiently detailed reasons

for its decision. Although Thomas argued that employers spoke highly of him, that his

wife supported him, and that he accepted responsibility for his conduct, the district court

stressed that Thomas had—on two prior occasions—violated the terms of his supervised

release and been granted lenient revocation sentences.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no

meritorious grounds for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This

court requires that counsel inform Thomas, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme

3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4572 Doc: 24 Filed: 11/15/2023 Pg: 4 of 4

Court of the United States for further review. If Thomas 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 Thomas.

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