US v. James Smith

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-4446

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES HUBBARD SMITH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:24-cr-00053-FL-1)

Submitted: July 16, 2026 Decided: July 20, 2026

Before WILKINSON, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Eric Joseph Brignac, Chief
Appellate Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. W. Ellis Boyle, United States Attorney, Lucy Partain Brown,
Assistant United States Attorney, Katherine S. Englander, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:
James Hubbard Smith appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised
release and imposing a 24-month prison term. He argues that his revocation sentence is
substantively unreasonable. 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., evaluating “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). If a revocation sentence is both
procedurally and substantively reasonable, we will not proceed to consider “whether the
sentence is plainly unreasonable—that is, whether the unreasonableness is clear or
obvious.” Patterson, 957 F.3d at 437 (internal quotation marks omitted).
“A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court adequately
explains the chosen sentence after considering the [Sentencing Guidelines’] Chapter Seven
policy statement range and the applicable [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) sentencing factors.” Id. at
436; see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (listing applicable factors); United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d
202, 208 (4th Cir. 2017) (“[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

3

still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed.” (citation modified)).
“A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if, in light of the totality of the
circumstances, the [district] court states an appropriate basis for concluding that the
defendant should receive the sentence imposed.” United States v. Coston, 964 F.3d 289,
297 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that Smith’s revocation sentence—which does not exceed the
maximum prison term allowed by statute, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)—is procedurally
reasonable. The district court properly calculated the policy statement range at 12 to 18
months’ imprisonment, heard argument from counsel and Smith’s allocution, and—after
considering these matters and the policy statement range—sufficiently explained its
reasons for imposing the 24-month term. The court’s reasons are grounded in factors
appropriate for consideration in the revocation sentencing context, namely, the nature and
circumstances of Smith’s violative conduct and his history and characteristics. See 18
U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), 3583(e). On substantive reasonableness, Smith emphasizes his
mental health struggles, the role they played in his violative conduct, and the insight into
his struggles that he displayed at the revocation hearing. The district court considered
Smith’s request for a within-policy-statement-range sentence grounded in his mental health
concerns and insight into those concerns and weighed that request against his violative
conduct, criminal history, and pattern of recidivism. Although “reasonable jurists could
perhaps have balanced those competing factors differently and arrived at a different result,
we cannot conclude that this is one of the rare cases where the sentence imposed by the

4

district court was substantively unreasonable in light of the § 3553(a) factors.” United
States v. Abed, 3 F.4th 104, 119 (4th Cir. 2021) (citation modified).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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