United States of America v. Anthony Wayne Cameron

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4806
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY WAYNE CAMERON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:95-cr-00266-JAB-2)
Submitted: April 13, 2015 Decided: April 17, 2015
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen F. Wallace, WALLACE LAW FIRM, High Point, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Wayne Cameron appeals his sentence of 51 months’
imprisonment imposed by the district court upon revocation of
his supervised release. On appeal, Cameron’s counsel has filed
a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but
raising as a potential issue whether the district court properly
sentenced Cameron. Although notified of his right to do so,
Cameron has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. 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). A revocation
sentence that “is within the statutory maximum and is not
‘plainly unreasonable’” will be affirmed on appeal. Id.
(quoting United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir.
2006)). In so evaluating a sentence, we assess it for
reasonableness, utilizing “the procedural and substantive
considerations” employed in evaluating an original criminal
sentence. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438.
A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the
district court has considered the policy statements contained in
Chapter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines and the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2012) factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)
(2012). Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. The district court also must

-- 2 of 4 --

3
provide an explanation for its chosen sentence, but the
explanation “need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a
revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a post-
conviction sentence.” United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544,
547 (4th Cir. 2010). A revocation sentence is substantively
reasonable if the district court states a proper basis for
concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence
imposed. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. Only if we find a sentence
to be procedurally or substantively unreasonable will we
determine whether the sentence is “plainly” so. Id. at 439.
Here, the district court properly considered the arguments
from counsel, allocution from Cameron, the statutory maximum
sentences upon revocation, and the § 3553(a) factors enumerated
in § 3583(e) before sentencing Cameron at the bottom of the
policy statement range. While the district court’s explanation
for its sentence was not lengthy, it provided a sentence
tailored to Cameron, focusing specifically on the nature and
circumstances of his violations of supervised release. We
therefore conclude that Cameron’s sentence is neither
procedurally nor substantively unreasonable and, therefore, is
not plainly so.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment revoking

-- 3 of 4 --

4
supervised release. This court requires that counsel inform
Cameron, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court
of the United States for further review. If Cameron 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 Cameron.
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

-- 4 of 4 --