US v. Terry White - Affirmation of Revoked Supervised Release Sentence

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25 - 4514 UNITED ST ATES OF AMER ICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERRY ANTONI O WHITE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Co urt for the Middle District of No rth Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:19 - cr - 00348 - TDS -1) Submitted: February 26, 202 6 Decided: March 3, 2026 Before NIEMEYER a nd QUATTL EBAUM, Circuit Jud ges, and FLOYD, Senior Circu it Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Mark A. Jones, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, P.A., Winston - Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Julie Carol Niemeier, Assistant United States Attorn ey, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolin a, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: Terry Antonio White appeals the d istrict court’s judgment revoking his superv ised release and imposing a n 18 - month prison term and an 18 - month term of supervised release. On appeal, White ’s attorney has filed a brief pu rsuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious g rounds for appeal but questioning whether W hite ’s revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable. T he Government did not file a response brief, and W h ite did not file a pro se supplemental b rief after b eing notified of his right t o do so. We affirm. “A district court has broad d iscretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” United States v. Patterson, 957 F.3d 426, 436 (4th Ci r. 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 wheth er the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable,” id., ap plying “the same procedural and substantive considerations that guide o ur review of original sentences” but tak ing “a more deferential appellate posture than we do when reviewing original sentences,” United States v. Padge tt, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015) (citation modified). “A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court ad equately explains the chosen sentence after co nsidering the Sentencing Guid elines’ nonbinding Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) factors.” Unite d States v. Coston, 964 F.3d 289, 297 (4th Ci r. 2020) (cit ation modified); see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (listing applicable factors). “A [revocatio n ] sentence is sub stantively reasonable

3 if the totality of the circumstances ind icates that the [district] court had a proper basis for its conclusion that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed.” United States v. Amin, 85 F.4th 72 7, 740 (4th Cir. 2025) (citation modified). “A sent ence within the policy statement range is presumed reasonable, though the senten cing court retains broad discretion to impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum.” Padgett, 788 F.3d at 373 (citation modified). Our review of the record reveals no p lain unreasonableness in W hite ’s revocation sentence. The district cou rt correctly identified the policy statement rang e, considered the relevant statutory factors, acknowledged White ’s mitigation argu ments, and ga ve sufficiently detailed reasons for selecting its downward - variant sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no m eritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This cou rt requires that counsel inform White, in writing, of the right to petition th e Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If White requests that a petition be filed, bu t 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 th ereof was served on White. We dispense with oral argument becau se the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED