United States of America v. Dacarrus Vanchell Staton

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5093
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DACARRUS VANCHELL STATON,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:04-cr-00153-FL-1)
Submitted: March 30, 2011 Decided: April 5, 2011
Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. George E.B. Holding, United States Attorney,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Dacarrus Staton appeals the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-
four months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Staton contends that the
sentence is plainly unreasonable. Finding no reversible error,
we affirm.
A district court has broad discretion to impose a
sentence upon revoking a defendant’s supervised release. United
States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). We will
affirm unless the sentence is “plainly unreasonable” in light of
the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. United
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006).
In reviewing the sentence imposed by the district
court, we first assess whether the sentence is unreasonable,
“follow[ing] generally the procedural and substantive
considerations that we employ in our review of original
sentences.” Id. at 438. A sentence is procedurally reasonable
if the district court has considered the policy statements
contained in chapter seven of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual (“USSG”) and the applicable § 3553(a) factors and has
explained adequately the sentence chosen. Id. at 439. A court
need not, however, explain a revocation sentence in as much
detail as is required upon imposition of the original sentence.
Id. A sentence is substantively reasonable if the district

-- 2 of 3 --

3
court states a proper basis for its imposition of a sentence up
to the statutory maximum. Id. at 440. If, after considering
the above, we determine that the sentence is not unreasonable,
we will affirm. Id. at 439.
We hold that the district court’s imposition of a
twenty-four month term of imprisonment was not unreasonable.
Procedurally, the district court adequately explained its chosen
sentence and considered the § 3553(a) factors and USSG chapter
seven policy statements. Substantively, the district court
stated a proper basis and sentenced Staton within the statutory
maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a) (2006). Because we conclude
that Staton’s sentence was not unreasonable, we need not
consider whether it was plainly so.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --