United States v. Terry White
This text of United States v. Terry White (United States v. Terry White) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 25-4514 Doc: 21 Filed: 03/03/2026 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-4514
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TERRY ANTONIO WHITE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:19-cr-00348-TDS-1)
Submitted: February 26, 2026 Decided: March 3, 2026
Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Mark A. Jones, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Julie Carol Niemeier, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 25-4514 Doc: 21 Filed: 03/03/2026 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Terry Antonio White appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised
release and imposing an 18-month prison term and an 18-month term of supervised release.
On appeal, White’s attorney 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 White’s revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable. The Government did not file
a response brief, and White did not file a pro se supplemental brief after being notified of
his right to do 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., applying “the same procedural and substantive
considerations that guide our review of original sentences” but taking “a more deferential
appellate posture than we do when reviewing original sentences,” United States v. Padgett,
788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015) (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
States v. Coston, 964 F.3d 289, 297 (4th Cir. 2020) (citation modified); see 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e) (listing applicable factors). “A [revocation] sentence is substantively reasonable
2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4514 Doc: 21 Filed: 03/03/2026 Pg: 3 of 3
if the totality of the circumstances indicates that the [district] 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. 2025) (citation modified). “A sentence within the policy
statement range is presumed reasonable, though the sentencing court retains broad
discretion to impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum.” Padgett, 788
F.3d at 373 (citation modified).
Our review of the record reveals no plain unreasonableness in White’s revocation
sentence. The district court correctly identified the policy statement range, considered the
relevant statutory factors, acknowledged White’s mitigation arguments, and gave
sufficiently detailed reasons for selecting its downward-variant sentence. In accordance
with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious
issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires
that counsel inform White, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If White 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 White.
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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Terry White, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-terry-white-ca4-2026.