Filed: Jun. 15, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-4847 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEWART KEITH POLK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief Judge. (1:08-cr-00221-TDS-2) Submitted: June 2, 2020 Decided: June 15, 2020 Before WYNN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George E. Crump, III, Rockin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-4847 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEWART KEITH POLK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief Judge. (1:08-cr-00221-TDS-2) Submitted: June 2, 2020 Decided: June 15, 2020 Before WYNN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George E. Crump, III, Rocking..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-4847
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEWART KEITH POLK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief Judge. (1:08-cr-00221-TDS-2)
Submitted: June 2, 2020 Decided: June 15, 2020
Before WYNN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George E. Crump, III, Rockingham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Craig Matthew
Principe, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stewart Keith Polk appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised
release and sentencing Polk to 14 months’ imprisonment, followed by an additional 46-
month term of supervised release. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal
but questioning whether the district court imposed a plainly unreasonable sentence.
Although advised of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, Polk 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 that “is within the prescribed statutory range and is not plainly
unreasonable.” United States v. Crudup,
461 F.3d 433, 440 (4th Cir. 2006). “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 where, as here, the district court
adequately explains the sentence after considering the Chapter Seven policy statements and
the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2018) factors. United States v. Slappy,
872 F.3d 202,
207 (4th Cir. 2017); see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2018). A revocation sentence is substantively
reasonable if the court states a proper basis for concluding that the defendant should receive
the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum.
Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. “A court
need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when
imposing a post-conviction sentence, but it still must provide a statement of reasons for the
2
sentence imposed.”
Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks omitted). Only
if a sentence is either procedurally or substantively unreasonable do we consider whether
the sentence is plainly unreasonable. United States v. Moulden,
478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th
Cir. 2007). We conclude that Polk’s 14-month term of imprisonment and his 46-month
term of supervised release are within both the statutory maximum and the policy statement
range and are not unreasonable, plainly or otherwise.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and
found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the revocation judgment. This
court requires that counsel inform Polk, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Polk 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 Polk. 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
3