United States of America v. Desmond Tyvon Wilson

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-4178

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DESMOND TYVON WILSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00263-CCE-1)

Submitted: August 25, 2020 Decided: August 27, 2020

Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Eric Lloyd Iverson, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:
Desmond Tyvon Wilson appeals from the district court judgment revoking his
supervised release and sentencing Wilson to 24 months’ imprisonment. 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,
Wilson 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.” Id. (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 are guided by “the same procedural and substantive
considerations that guide our review of original sentences.” United States v. Padgett, 788
F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).
“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. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2017) (footnotes omitted). “[A] revocation
sentence is substantively reasonable if the court sufficiently states a proper basis for its
conclusion that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed.” Id. (brackets and

3

internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Wilson’s 24-month sentence is within both the statutory maximum and the policy statement
range and is 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 Wilson, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Wilson 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 Wilson. 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