United States v. Terry Perry

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: January 19, 2023
• Docket: 22-4043
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4043 Doc: 33 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4043

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TERRY TERRELL PERRY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:16-cr-00026-M-1)

Submitted: January 17, 2023 Decided: January 19, 2023

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Sharon Leigh Smith, UNTI & SMITH, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4043 Doc: 33 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Terry Terrell Perry appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised

release and sentencing him to 18 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 Perry’s sentence is procedurally reasonable because the

court failed to address all of Perry’s arguments and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and

adequately explain the sentence. The Government has declined to file a brief. Although

notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Perry has not done so. We affirm.

“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of

supervised release.” United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). “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). “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 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). “[A]lthough the court need

not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when

imposing a post-conviction sentence, it still must provide a statement of reasons for the

sentence imposed.” Slappy, 872 F.3d at 208 (cleaned up). The district court must, at a

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4043 Doc: 33 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 3 of 4

minimum, explain the sentence sufficiently to permit meaningful appellate review “with

the assurance that the court considered any potentially meritorious arguments raised by

[the defendant] with regard to his sentencing.” United States v. Gibbs, 897 F.3d 199, 205

(4th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up).

A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court states a proper

basis for concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the

statutory maximum. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 440 (4th Cir. 2006). Only if

a sentence is either procedurally or substantively unreasonable is a determination then

made as to whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. United States v. Moulden, 478

F.3d 652, 656-57 (4th Cir. 2007).

We conclude that Perry’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable.

The district court imposed a within-policy-statement-range sentence, considered the

relevant statutory factors, and gave sufficiently detailed reasons for its decision.

Specifically, the court recognized Perry’s history as a good employee and emphasized that,

while Perry’s financial pressures did not excuse his conduct, they did mitigate it.

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

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

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

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

3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4043 Doc: 33 Filed: 01/19/2023 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